Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Mumbles Pier Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

South Shields Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED EASTER.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister when the communications and transit organisation of the League of Nations last met to consider the fixing of a regular date for Easter; and what decisions were arrived at?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Advisory and Technical Committee of the League of Nations for Communications and Transit last met on 9th September, 1937, to consider this question. A resolution was then adopted that it was not considered expedient at that time to contemplate the calling of a conference to carry out a reform of the calendar.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many foreign Powers agreed to fall in with the suggestion put forward by the British Government?

Mr. Butler: I think all the Powers present at the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government on 14th January, respecting the re-opening of the Yangtze River to commercial traffic, have had any effect?

Mr. Butler: The position remains unchanged, but we are continuing to press for the early restoration of normal trading conditions.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister what has been the practical effect on trade with North China of the regulations imposed at the instance of the Japanese Government, under which, since nth March, a high proportion of the export trade of North China is prohibited unless the foreign exchange proceeds are sold against Federal Reserve banknotes at 1s. 2d.; and what answer has been received from the Japanese Government to the protest of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: These regulations have resulted in the cessation of practically all the foreign trade of Tientsin, and, so far as my Noble Friend is aware, of other North China ports as well. We are still awaiting the Japanese Government's reply.

Major Stourton: asked the Prime Minister whether the representations of His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government relating to the seizure and confiscation by the Japanese of the British-owned cotton mill at Ghun-Tah, on the Soochow Creek, have yet secured the restoration of the mill to its lawful owner; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation to authorise the impounding of securities in this country belonging to the Japanese Government to the value of British-owned property in China wrongfully seized by the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is at present awaiting further information from His Majesty's Ambassador in China as to the present position in regard to the Chun Tah and other cotton mills occupied by Japanese at Shanghai.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of his representations, both to the Imperial Japanese Government and to the local Japanese authorities at Shanghai, on the danger to life and property owing to the lack of control and general prevalence of disorder and lawlessness in the so-called bad lands in Shanghai, outside the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Municipal Council, and at present occupied by the Japanese military authorities?

Mr. Butler: It is hoped that the arrangements which have been made for co-operation between the Shanghai Municipal Council and the Japanese authorities will result in an improvement in conditions in the areas in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister (1)whether, following the termination of hostilities in Spain, German troops and war material have been withdrawn from Spanish territories;
(2) whether the Italian Government are withdrawing their troops and war material from Spain, as undertaken by them under the provisions of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the war is over in Spain, he has any information as to the date when Italian and German troops will be withdrawn?

Mr. Butler: So far as I am aware, the Italian and German Governments have not yet withdrawn their troops from Spain, and I have at present no indication how soon this withdrawal will take place.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the concern of His Majesty's Government, having regard to the fact that the Italian Government undertook in the Anglo-Italian Agreement to withdraw their troops and material as soon as the war was terminated? Is it not a fact that the war has been officially declared by General Franco to have ended?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, the war is just over and His Majesty's Government propose to watch the situation.

Mr. Henderson: Have the Government made any inquiries in Rome whether the Italian Government intend to carry out their undertaking?

Mr. Butler: I have said that we are fully aware of the assurances that have been given, and that the war is just over and we propose to watch the situation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have the Government made any representations to the German Government, in view of Herr Hitler's avowal the other day that in spite of the Non-intervention Agreement he had allowed a great number of German troops in Spain?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the Under-Secretary say whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Spain has been instructed to remind General Franco of his undertaking that Italian and German troops would be removed from Spain on the completion of the war?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that His Majesty's Ambassador, like His Majesty's Government, will watch the situation in the light of the declarations that have been made.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any instructions been given to him?

Mr. Butler: In view of the knowledge that we have of our Ambassador and his knowledge of the situation, special instructions are not necessary.

Mr. Mander: Has not the position been accentuated by the fact that General Franco has joined the Berlin-Rome axis?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the number of Italian troops in Spain at present; and as to whether their number has increased or decreased recently?

Mr. Butler: I regret that I am unable to give any figures for the accuracy of which I cannot vouch, but we have had indications that certain replacements were sent to Spain while hostilities were still in progress.

Mr. Roberts: Can the Under-Secretary say when these replacements arrived, and where?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give the exact date. The information we have is that they took place while hostilities were in progress.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: When the Under-Secretary uses the word "replacements," does it not give the impression that certain troops were withdrawn?

Mr. Butler: We have had information that there were many casualties.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the immunity from hostile action guaranteed to ships sent by the International Relief Commission by the new Spanish Government extends to ships returning from Spanish ports with political refugees?

Mr. Butler: The International Commission were given an assurance on behalf of the Spanish Government that certain ships carrying relief supplies would not be molested on their way to the Republican ports for which they were bound. The Commission did not ask for an assurance to be given to these ships once their cargo was discharged.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that the immunity does not extend to these ships on the outward journey, whether they are carrying refugees or not?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, that assurance was not asked for.

Mr. W. Roberts: Is it a fact that British warships have been told not to go to Spanish ports in connection with the rescuing of refugees?

Mr. Butler: I have no knowledge of any such instruction.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that General Franco was asked whether he would accept the evacuation of refugees, and, in view of his refusal, can His Majesty's Government do what they have done in previous wars and extend some humane help to those refugees who are in danger of their lives?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENT (RAW MATERIALS, EXPORT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dependence of Germany on imports for the supply of such essential materials for rearmament as iron-ore, petroleum, copper, lead, sulphur, cotton, aluminium, rubber, manganese, nickel, chromite, tungsten, phosphates, antimony, tin, mercury and mica,

he will enter into discussions with countries possessing such materials with a view to arranging for them to be withheld from Germany and any other country guilty of unprovoked aggression?

Mr. Butler: The commodities enumerated by the hon. Member are not in general used exclusively or even mainly for the purpose of rearmament. An arrangement to withhold them from certain countries would constitute in effect a form of sanctions, the imposition of which is no part of the present policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: Is it the case that the Government prefer military methods rather than peaceful economic pressure to prevent war?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the alteration which the hon. Member puts forward.

Mr. Mander: In view of the extreme importance of this matter in preventing war by peaceful methods, will not the Government give it more serious consideration than they are apparently prepared to do at the present time?

Mr. Butler: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have given this question and similar questions very careful consideration.

Sir Joseph Lamb: On a point of Order. Is there any method whereby Supplementary Questions which would not be accepted at the Table can be excluded?

Mr. Speaker: The only way would be for me to call to order the Member who asks the Supplementary Question, which I sometimes do.

Mr. Mander: This is not the Reichstag.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that rearmament would be impossible without the materials enumerated?

Mr. Butler: Obviously, most of these materials are used for armaments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, following on the guarantee to Poland, His Majesty's Government will enter into conversations with Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, and Belgium with a view to giving similar undertakings to those countries?

Mr. Butler: I have at present nothing to add to the Prime Minister's speech in the Debate on 3rd April, but I would remind the hon. Member that this country already has treaty obligations towards Belgium.

Mr. Mander: Has any guarantee been given to any of these countries?

Mr. Butler: I can add nothing to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3rd April.

Mr. Mander: Surely, it is of the utmost importance that if any guarantee has been given the world should know it?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the very important statement made by the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

CONVENTION.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Air what precise decisions were reached at the recent conference in London with regard to fuel used for civil aviation purposes on machines passing over a number of countries; and whether any Customs concessions are likely to be obtained as a result of this conference which will be of benefit to British civil aviation in the Empire or in Europe?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): It is impossible to summarise briefly the decisions reached at the conference referred to by my hon. Friend. The decisions are, however, embodied in a convention which was opened for signature on 1st March and remains open for signature until 1st June, 1939. The text will be issued as a White Paper as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

HESTON AERODROME (GASOMETER).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he pro poses to take in view of the fact that pilots using Heston aerodrome are gravely concerned about danger to flying due to the gas-holder immediately adjacent; and whether he is satisfied that the provision made now for the identification of the gas-holder by pilots is sufficient?

Captain Balfour: I am aware that the existing lighting of the gasometer adjacent to Heston Airport is not considered satisfactory for the high speed aircraft now operating from that aerodrome. A lighting installation was installed in 1937 but was subsequently found to be inadequate owing to the increase of surrounding lights in the district which made the gasometer lighting not sufficiently distinguishable. Further improvements were made in the spring of 1938. The question has again been recently the subject of examination and negotiations with the owners of the gasometer, and as a result the addition of lights on the side of the gasometer and the erection of a flashing beacon on the top of the holder have been decided upon. Additional lights will be completed in three months' time and the flashing beacon shortly afterwards.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If this lighting arrangement is not satisfactory, will arrangements be made to move the gasholder?

PUBLIC CORPORATION.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he proposes to introduce legislation to provide for a public corporation for overseas civil aviation?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I hope to be able to introduce the legislation referred to during the course of next month.

OIL ENGINES (RESEARCH).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the results of the latest experiments that have taken place in the development of oil engines for the purpose of incorporating same in aircraft for use in trans-ocean services; and whether it is proposed to fit any of the civil airliners built for this purpose with this type of engine?

Captain Balfour: Progress is being made in the research which is being conducted by several engine firms with a view to developing the compression ignition engine, but no type has so far been produced which can compare favourably with the petrol engine in technical performance requirements. It is not proposed to fit this type of engine to the aircraft at present under construction and to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that experiments are still being continued, and will they be continued?

Captain Balfour: The experiments are being continued by several engineering firms in this country and by research engineers throughout the countries of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NEW DUAL CARRIAGEWAY (OXFORD-HIGH WYCOMBE ROAD).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Transport when it is anticipated that the construction of the new dual carriage way at Wheatley on the Oxford-High Wycombe road will be started and when it will be completed; whether the dual carriageway will have a pedestrian cross over; and whether he will consider introducing a 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit in the meantime?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am not yet in a position to add to the information which I gave to my hon. Friend on 22nd March regarding the scheme for this new road. The existing road cannot, in my opinion, be deemed to be a road in a built-up area and I should not, therefore, be prepared to approve the introduction of a speed-limit. I will, however, consider whether some immediate steps can be taken to effect an improvement of the road from the point of view of safety.

CRAWLEY BY-PASS AND WESTERN AVENUE.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport when the Crawley by-pass will be open; and when the extension of Western Avenue will be completed?

Mr. Burgin: I hope that the Crawley by-pass will be open to traffic in June next. The extension of Western Avenue will be completed in about two years from now.

TRAFFIC SCHEMES, LONDON AREA.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport particulars of roundabouts or one-way traffic schemes it is proposed to introduce in the London area in the near future?

Mr. Burgin: I am sending the hon. Member a list and propose also to circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Can we be assured that all these one-way traffic schemes are satisfactory?

Mr. Burgin: That is rather a large order, but, generally speaking, they are.

Following are the details:

"One-way" and "Roundabout" schemes in respect of which Notice has been published, but Regulations have not yet been made.

1. Sidney Street and Cecil Road, Enfield. (One-way working.)
2. Aylmer Road (A.555) and Archway Road (A.1) at junction with Great North Road (A.1) and North Hill, Hornsey. (Roundabout working.)
3. Lower Morden Lane at junction with Grand Drive and Hillcross Avenue, Morden.
(Roundabout working.)
4. Kew Bridge Road (A.315) at junction with Kew Bridge Approach (A.307). (Roundabout working.)
5. Hanworth Road (A.314) junction with Nelson Road and Wellington Road South (B.358), Twickenham.(One-way working.)
6. Maiden Road (B.283) at junction with South Lane, Maiden.(Roundabout working.)
7. East Hill (A.3 and A.3036) at junction with Huguenot Place (A.3), Wands-worth.(Roundabout working.)
8. London Road (A. 105) and The Town (A.110), Enfield.(One-way working.)
9. Sidcup By-pass (A.20) at junction with Cray Road (A.224), Foots Cray.(Roundabout working.)
10. Northwold Road (B.111) junction with Rectory Road, Hackney. (One-way working.)
11. Vauxhall Cross, Lambeth. (One-way working.)
12. St. Martin's Lane (B.404) junction with Cranbourn Street (B.402), Westminster. (Roundabout working.)
13. Shepherd's Bush Green (Hammersmith). (One-way working.)
14. Langley Way at junction with Cassiobury Drive, Watford.(Roundabout working.)
15. Old Oak Common Lane, Erconwald Street and Ducane Road junction, Hammersmith. (One-way working.)
16. St. Paul's Road (B.140) at junction with Turners Road, Stepney. (One-way working.)
17. Feltham Hill Road at junction with School Road, Ashford. (One-way working.)
18. Widmore Road (A.222) at junction with Tweedy Road, Bromley. (Roundabout working.)
19. Milcote Street, Southwark. (One-way working.)


20. St. John's Park Road (B.212) at junction with St. John's Park, Greenwich. (Roundabout working.)
21. Lordship Lane (A.109) at junction with High Road (A. 105), Wood Green. (One-way working.)
22. Lewisham High Street (A.21), south of Clock Tower, Lewisham. (One-way working.)
23. Brixton Road (A.23) at junction with Electric Avenue, Brixton. (One-way working.)
24. Godstone Road (A. 22) at junction with Little Roke Road and Lower Road, Coulsdon. (One-way working.)
25. Leyton High Road (A.112) at junction with Lea Bridge Road (A. 104), Leyton. (One-way working.)
26. Crouch Hill junction with Crouch End Hill, Hornsey. (One-way working.)
27. South Lambeth Road into Old South Lambeth Road and Meadow Place, Lambeth. (Prohibited right-hand turn.)
28. Purley Way junction with Stafford Road, Croydon. (One-way working.)
29. Leigham Court Road junction with Leigham Avenue, and Conifer Gardens, Wandsworth. (One-way working.)
30. West Street (B.2S0), High Street (A.24) and South Street (A.24), Epsom. (Roundabout working.)

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (BLACKPOOL AREA).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport when the report made by the chief engineering inspector of the Electricity Commissioners as to the outcome of the public inquiry into the causes of the failure of electricity supply in Blackpool, Lytham St. Annes and the Fylde Coast, during the week-end of 7th January, will be published; and whether the inspector has suggested to the commissioners any means of preventing such a breakdown in the future?

Mr. Burgin: The Electricity Commissioners will publish the report as soon after Easter as possible. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend will no doubt await the terms of the report.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that gas - light and coke companies never fail?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DREDGER CONTRACT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the contract price for the building of the dredger they have placed with Messrs. Lobnitz and Company, of Renfrew, was the lowest British tender; whether foreign firms were asked to quote; and, if so, how did their price compare with the British tender?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The tender accepted was the lowest for a design in conformity with the Admiralty outline requirements. No foreign firms were asked to quote.

ROYAL YACHT.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will reconsider the decision to provide for oil-firing of the new Royal yacht; and to arrange for British coal to be used for this purpose?

Mr. Shakespeare: The ship and yacht builders who have received a statement of requirements on which to base their preliminary designs are at liberty to propose a coal-burning ship if they think that such a vessel can meet the required conditions within reasonable dimensions and price. While the Admiralty would certainly give consideration to any such proposal, I should mention that the well-known objections to coal as a fuel for yachts are applicable to this vessel.

CONTRACT WORK, ROSYTH.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the discontent caused in West Fife by the action of the contractors employed on the concreting of oil tanks at Rosyth who have been in discriminately dismissing local men with out any reason being given and replacing them by men from outside the area; and will he inquire into the situation and take steps to prevent discrimination against local men?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am satisfied from inquiries made that the hon. Member's suggestion is unfounded. The practice of the contractor concerned is to engage men from the local Employment Exchange. Any man who, after trial, is


found to be unsuitable for the work is naturally discharged, but there is no discrimination against local men, as such, in favour of outside labour.

Mr. Gallacher: If I give the hon. Member the names of a number of local men who have been discharged, will he give them some consideration?

Mr. Shakespeare: If the hon. Member will meet the Civil Lord or myself, I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIVE LABOUR (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any native labourers are recruited for countries where Governments have not yet conformed to the labour conditions of the International Labour Office; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of prohibiting such recruitment until the conventions are conformed to?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to recruitment of the natives of certain dependencies for the Union of South Africa. I do not regard the fact that the Union Government have not been able to adopt all the International Labour Conventions as a ground for adopting the suggestion in the second part of the question, especially as special arrangements have been made with the companies concerned by which in effect the provisions of the Recruiting Convention apply to the natives from the Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (NATIVE PRODUCE).

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the native produce of British West Africa is now largely controlled by large British buyers; and whether he will give the types of commodity and the names of the buyers in question?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the extent to which the West African native producers rely for the marketing of their produce on a number of merchant firms, British and foreign. Among the more important British firms are the United Africa Company, John Holt and Company, the Co-operative Wholesale Society and Cadbury Brothers. The most import-

ant products are palm products, cocoa and groundnuts.

Mr. Kerr: What action has been taken? What are the recommendations of the Cocoa Commission?

Mr. MacDonald: That matter is still under consideration in the Colonies concerned, and I am awaiting a final report on the matter from the Governors.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (HUT AND POLL TAX).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ascertain from the colonial territories in Africa whether they have available for publication any records showing the cost of collecting hut and poll tax from the natives?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I will make inquiries on the subject, though I doubt whether many of the figures are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the committee set up to consider the McMahon correspondence went beyond its terms of reference when it dealt with documents relating to, and expressed views bearing upon, the meaning of the Balfour Declaration and the nature of the responsibilities assumed by His Majesty's Government in relation to Palestine; and why the Jewish delegation was not consulted before the results of the inquiry were made public in an official document?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Committee had no precise terms of reference beyond those of considering the McMahon correspondence; and I cannot accept the view expressed in the first part of the question. The results of the inquiry were published as a report adopted by the Conference between United Kingdom and Arab represeentatives, and in the circumstances there was no reason for consultation with the Jewish Delegation before publication.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Anglo-Arab conference did go beyond, as they thought, their terms of reference; should not the Jewish Agency have been brought in; and may I ask whether, if they are to issue


a report of some documents and not of all relevant documents, is that not likely to be misleading and create false hopes and fears?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot accept the conclusion that the Committee did go beyond its terms of reference. As to the second part of the supplementary, as the subject under discussion was the correspondence which had passed between the British authorities and the Arab authorities, it would not necessarily be appropriate for the Jewish view to be taken in regard to those documents. In the light of all the circumstances I cannot agree that it would have been appropriate for them to have been consulted.

Mr. Williams: In view of the fact that Jewish interests were so deeply involved in these discussions and examinations, might not the Jewish section of the conference have been consulted as well as the Anglo-Arab section of the conference?

Mr. MacDonald: I think a careful study of the report will indicate that the Jewish interests in the matter were very carefully watched by the representatives of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the conclusions might definitely affect Jewish interests is it not extraordinary that they were not given an opportunity of presenting their point of view?

Mr. MacDonald: We were all anxious that the Arab, Jewish and British representatives should all meet together and discuss these matters, and it was not the fault of His Majesty's Government that they could not meet in common conference.

Mr. T. Williams: Was it the fault of the Jewish representatives that they could not all meet together?

Mr. Crossley: Why not send the whole of the correspondence for the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. MacDonald: The whole matter was adequately dealt with and no amount of further examination would alter the sort of conclusion at which the Committee arrived.

Mr. Noel-Bakers: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Jews to

put forward their observations and publish them in a White Paper?

Mr. MacDonald: The observations of the Jewish Agency have already been published to some extent in letters to the Press. It is perfectly open to representatives of the Jewish Agency to publish their documents at any time, as they have done on many occasions.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that if a White Paper is published it is recognised throughout the world as an official document, whereas letters to the Press are ignored by people who know the contents of the official document?

Mr. MacDonald: I would repeat, that the subject matter of this inquiry was the correspondence between British authorities and Arab authorities in which no Jewish authorities were concerned. The report indicates that it is concerned with these documents, and these documents alone, and it adds that there are other relevant documents which would have to be taken into consideration before a final and comprehensive conclusion is reached.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the exact terms of the declaration of the claim for the independence of the Arabic areas, made before the Council of Five at the Peace Conference, were submitted to the Lord Chancellor's Committee on the McMahon correspondence?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that if Palestine had been promised to the Arabs the Arab delegation would have demanded independence at the Conference?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think that is necessarily so. I agree that it is an important consideration that at the Conference Palestine was not included in the territories which the Hedjaz delegation claimed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the case that the Hedjaz delegation specifically excluded Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: That is exactly the point put by the hon. Member.

Mr. Crossley: What had the Hedjaz delegation to do with the Palestinian Arabs?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the concluding paragraph of Cmd. 5974, and the inference to be drawn therefrom; and, as this inference is inconsistent with the decision of the principal allied Powers and the League of Nations when they conferred mandatory power on the British Government to administer in accordance with the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and the preamble to the Mandate, will he submit the White Paper to the Mandates Commission and ask for their opinion on it?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware of the paragraph in the report to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot agree with the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, and that being so I see no reason to submit the report of the committee to the Permanent Mandates Commission.

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do that, may I ask whether it is not the case that the presence of Great Britain in Palestine is only as long as we fulfil the terms of the Mandate, which involves the establishment of a National Home, among other things?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 25th July, 1921, in reply to a question, was considered by the Anglo-Arab Committee; and, if so, why it was omitted from the White Paper published on 16th March, 1939?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has as to the social and economic position in St. Helena, particularly relating to unemployment and infantile mortality, and the social services available for dealing with these problems?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Governor submitted a comprehensive report on the social and economic position in St. Helena in a despatch dated 20th August last year, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. With regard to infantile mortality, the latest available figures are for 1937, when the rate was approximately 45 per 1,000 births. As to the action now being taken to improve conditions in the island, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the replies which I gave to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Sir R. Rankin) on 22nd December and 22nd February. In addition I have recently approved a grant of children's allowances for the families of men who are in receipt of relief. As regards health services, one infant welfare clinic was established in 1938; and I have now approved the opening of a second and the appointment of the necessary staff.

Mr. Ridley: Having regard to the very considerable uneasiness which exists in the minds of many people about the social conditions in this small Dependency, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an independent inquiry to be made by this House in order that active steps may be taken in the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think such a step is necessary. At the present time, my chief agricultural adviser and another representative of the Colonial Office are in the Island conducting an examination into the situation, and I expect a report from them in the very near future.

Mr. Ridley: Will the terms of the report be made available to hon. Members after the Government have had an opportunity of considering it?

Mr. MacDonald: I will consider that when I receive the report. As was indicated in my original reply, there is available in the Library a very recent report on the whole matter from the Governor of the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the report of the Kenya Settlement Committee; whether the recommendations for the


provision of water supplies in the areas being offered for settlement have received his consideration; and whether he will recommend that the repayment of any grant made by the Colonial Development Fund for this purpose, as also any financial provision for the main scheme, shall not fall upon the native population of Kenya?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not yet received the Governor's observations on the report of the Kenya Settlement Committee, and am therefore not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH DECLARATION (IRAQ AND SYRIA).

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will publish the Franco-British proclamation of 9th November, 1918, to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia and Syria?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Anglo-French Declaration of 7th November, 1918, which has already been published as Annex I, to the report contained in Command Paper No. 5974.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the decision to increase the Territorial Army, the question of a Ministry of Supply is being re-examined by His Majesty's Government?

Major Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in view of the recent decision of His Majesty's Government to double the strength of the Territorial Army, what steps he proposes to take to ensure priority of orders for the delivery of the necessary materials, arms and equipment with adequate dispatch?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The matters referred, to in the questions are amongst those to which attention is being given by His Majesty's Government, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29th March.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether this review of the position is being undertaken by some special body set up for that purpose, especially in view of the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the equipment of the Army cannot achieve maximum efficiency under the existing organisation?

Mr. Morrison: A decision of this kind is a matter for His Majesty's Government, and it is for that body that the review is being made.

MEDITERRANEAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any plans for concerted French and British action in the Mediterranean exist; and whether any conversations between French and British naval, military and air authorities concerning such plans have recently taken place or are contemplated?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Contacts between the two staffs regarding strategical questions affecting both countries, which were initiated three years ago, are being continued.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are special contacts between the staffs in matters affecting the Mediterranean at present being undertaken?

Mr. Morrison: In the course of these contacts, all questions affecting strategic considerations common to both countries come under review.

GIBALTAR.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has drawn the attention of the Committee of Imperial Defence to the recent statement of the late Governor of Gibraltar concerning the state of the de fences of Gibraltar during the Munich crisis; whether the situation at Gibraltar has been studied in the light of that statement; and whether all the requirements of the authorities at Gibraltar in respect of sea, land and air defences, have now been met?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards the first part of the question, the state of the defences at Gibraltar is constantly under review by the Committee of Imperial Defence, in consultation with the authorities at Gibraltar. No special examination was


therefore necessary in the light of the recent statement of the late Governor. As regards the last part of the question, it would not be in the public interest that I should do more than invite the hon. and gallant Member's attention to that part of the statement made by the late Governor in which he referred to improvements effected since last September.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a question in this House in July, 1938, about the defence of Gibraltar, the Prime Minister stated that the whole question of the strategical position of Gibraltar and its defence was under review by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that no further action was necessary; and that a month or two later, at the time of the crisis, the Governor of Gibraltar said that there were only two anti-aircraft guns on the Rock?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Lieut. - Commander Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, may I press for an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not turn the matter into a debate at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA AND WEST INDIES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a law was enacted in 1933 by the Legislative Council of British Guiana to regulate the employment of children and young persons; that this enactment was promulgated only in April, 1938, and up to the present no regulations have been issued for its application; and what is the explanation for the non-application of this enactment passed in 1933?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware of the reasons for the delay in bringing the Ordinance into operation.

Mr. Riley: Am I to take it that this Act has not been in operation, although it was passed in 1933? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reasons why it has taken six years for the Act to be put into operation?

Mr. MacDonald: The Act is in operation to-day, but the regulations have not yet been made under some of its sections. Quite recently a Labour Department was established in the Colony, and no doubt it will be its duty to advise the Governor as to what regulations may be necessary.

Mr. Riley: Is any specific officer charged with the duty of seeing that the Act is actually applied?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I think that will come under the authority of the labour officer.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that children under 12 years of age are being employed on sugar estates in Trinidad, Barbados, and British Guiana; that at certain periods of the year these children are employed from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.; whether the employment of children below 12 years of age on sugar estates in the Islands mentioned is legal; and whether any officials are charged with the duty of preventing violations of the law?

Mr. MacDonald: In Trinidad the law prescribes that a child under the age of 12 shall not be employed in any occupation. But whilst there is legislation fixing 12 as the minimum age for the admission of children to industrial employment in Barbados and British Guiana, there is no similar legislation fixing a minimum age for employment in other occupations. I have already brought the desirability of making such legislation to the notice of the Government of Barbados and British Guiana and I am awaiting their replies. A Labour Department has already been set up in British Guiana, and these departments are also in process of being established in the other two Colonies. It will be the duty of these departments to see that any laws governing the employment of children are observed.

Mr. Riley: May I take it that the statements made in the question are correct, and that children under 12 years of age are being employed in these islands? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as being right?

Mr. MacDonald: I could not vouch for the accuracy of all the statements in the first part of the question. I have already


indicated that I have told the Governments of these Colonies that I think it is very desirable that there should be a minimum age for the employment of children in any occupations.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the terms of new legislation, have regard to what this House in the last two years has decided to be appropriate conditions for the employment of young persons in this country, and will he see that the employment conditions in the Colonies are brought into harmony?

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend let the Colonies know that we think 12 years of age is a little too young for children to work in any country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (DOCUMENTS, LOSS).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a travelling bag, containing secret anti-aircraft plans for which Scot land Yard had been hunting for 24 hours, Was handed in to Bow Street Police Station on Sunday night by a man who was unaware of the importance of its contents; that the bag belonged to a young officer who discovered his loss whilst staying in London on Saturday on his way to Somerset; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Inquiries are not yet completed, but I am informed that the officer was a Territorial who was returning from an elementary anti-aircraft course at Biggin Hill. The bag in question was in his car, which was stolen in London. The bag contained some précis, not of a secret nature, and the notes taken by the officer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the discretion now given to county councils to substitute council control for police control of the air-raid wardens service with out necessarily securing the approval of his Department, the words, "with the

concurrence of the Air-raid Precautions Department, if the Department is satisfied," contained in the last paragraph on page 3, of Memorandum No. 4, 2nd edition, published in February, 1939, are in future to be disregarded?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid that I unwittingly misled my hon. Friend and the House in a reply to a supplementary question on 30th March. The position is that, while the local authority is responsible for arranging for the organisation of the air-raid wardens' service in its area, I have recommended that this service should normally be organised by and under the control of the chief constable; and I have asked that any local authority desiring to defer the adoption of this arrangement should inform the Department in order that I may be satisfied that there are in the particular case special reasons for deferring the adoption of what I regard as the normal system of organisation. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of making the position clear.

Mr. John Morgan: Are we to take it from that reply, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department accepts full financial responsibility for employing the police for this purpose and not the local authorities concerned?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think the question of finance arises. If any additional expense is involved in the arrangement by which the chief constable is made responsible, that additional expense will rank for grant.

Mr. Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied about the co-ordination between the local authorities and the police?

Sir J. Anderson: Broadly speaking, yes.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about the co-ordination between the working classes in these areas and the police?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that in the urban district of Seaham out of 30,000 gas-masks required only 18,150 have been supplied; and whether he can say when the balance will be at the disposal of the local authority?

Sir J. Anderson: The deficiency of respirators for Seaham Urban District Council was reported by the Durham county authorities on 21st March to be 7,537 and these were delivered to Seaham yesterday.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this week I received a letter from the clerk to the Seaham council stating that only 18,150 gas masks had been delivered.

Sir J. Anderson: The figure communicated to the Department was communicated by the Durham county authorities who undertook the distribution. It may be that the Durham county authorities had a supply which, together with the supplementary supply from the Department, enabled them to satisfy the demand.

Mr. Shinwell: Can I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the full number of 30,000 gas masks will be supplied?

Sir J. Anderson: The number required by the Durham county authorities has been supplied, but I will look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the action of the air-raid precautions officer for Croydon in asking a candidate for appointment as industrial liaison officer was he a member of the Labour party, and, on receiving an answer in the affirmative, saying that that would make it difficult for the appointment to be offered to him; and whether he will make it clear that questions about their political opinions should not be put to candidates for appointment under air-raid precautions schemes?

Sir J. Anderson: I am informed that out of 280 applicants for this appointment, one candidate appeared to interpret a question put to him about his previous experience upon joint industrial councils as an inquiry regarding his own political opinions. I am assured by the local authority that no question about his political opinions was put to him or would be put to any candidate for appointment.

Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the man in question is a most responsible man with a very considerable amount of public experience,

and that it is exceedingly unlikely that he misinterpreted any question which was put to him?

Sir J. Anderson: I have given the House the information given to me by the local authority.

Mr. Garro Jones: In view of the great importance of ascertaining the truth in a matter of this kind, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it necessary to interview the applicant concerned and get his version of what happened; and, if not, will he do so?

Sir J. Anderson: It seems to be a very small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The House knows that the Government have always maintained that in this matter of civil defence, no question of political opinion arises.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no charge or suggestion is being made against the Government and that this question suggests that the local authority have misinterpreted their duties; and will he do his best to clear the matter up in a more impartial manner than he has done?

Sir J. Anderson: I have done so, and I have received an explanation which seems to be perfectly reasonable.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the fact that there are two parties implicated in this matter, namely, the local authority and the man, and in view of the great importance of the matter, would it not be fair of the right hon. Gentleman to see this man personally and to balance the two statements which have been made as to what happened?

Sir J. Anderson: I really think that I should not be justified in rejecting what, on the face of it, is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Mr. Magnay: Is the Minister aware that if you want to know how to do this sort of thing you have to go to the Durham County Council where they will tell you that for executive offices only Labour men need apply?

Mr. Ammon: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this continues, he will wreck the whole scheme?

Mr. Ede: Seeing that I have given the right hon. Gentleman the name and the


public record of this man, and his personal associations with myself, which enable me to vouch for him as a responsible person, will the right hon. Gentleman not see the man and hear his side of the case?

Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly consider any representations made to me by the man in question, but I am not aware that a suggestion that he misinterpreted a question involves any reflection upon him.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE REVENUE (FOOTBALL POOLS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state for each of the last five years the percentage of the total Post Office revenue attributed to football pools transactions and associated business?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): The percentages are as follow:

1934–35
…
…
…
1.4


1935–36
…
…
…
2.7


1936–37
…
…
…
2.9


1937–38
…
…
…
3.2


1938–39
…
…
…
3.5

Mr. Davies: May I ask whether, in arriving at those percentages, the hon. Gentleman included anything other than the amount paid for postal orders for this purpose?

Sir W. Womersley: In arriving at these figures I took into account the halfpenny stamps on the letters, the poundage on the postal orders, and also the poundage on the postal orders that were sent to the winners, but I may say to my right hon. Friend that these figures represent gross and not net revenue. If I give him figures which showed also the cost of carrying on the service, they would be very much smaller than those I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA FISH INDUSTRY ACT (LOCAL COMMITTEES).

Viscountess Astor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to secure the appointment of practical fishermen as members of the local committees under the Sea Fish Industry Act when the membership of such committees arises this year?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): It is not anticipated that many vacancies will arise on local fisheries committees during the present year, but on the reconstruction of these committees in April, 1940, under the terms of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938, I shall endeavour to secure adequate representation of practical fishermen among the new members. My predecessors and I have always had this object in view in making our appointments, but it is by no means easy to find a sufficient number of working fishermen who are able and willing to devote the time required for service on these committees.

Viscountess Astor: If it were possible to find working fishermen who could act on these committees, would the Minister not consider co-opting them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that if working fishermen became members of these committees, they would have to lose employment in serving upon the committees and in that case would appropriate sums be found to compensate them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is not allowed under the Act, but I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is pro posed to proceed with the Milk Products Marketing Scheme, which was considered at a public inquiry over two years' ago and has since been held up by the Ministry of Agriculture?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on 9th February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — OXFORD GROUP (PETITIONS).

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the application for a licence for incorporation of a company


not for profit, under the name "The Oxford Group"; whether he has considered the petitions supporting the application, signed by 125 Members of Parliament of all parties, by many religious leaders, lord mayors, mayors, aldermen, councillors, and business and professional men throughout the country; and what decision he has arrived at?

The Parliamentary. Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): The matter is still under consideration, but I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision at an early date.

Sir C. Rawson: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has received opinions also from a large number of Oxford men in support of the petition and from the Fellows and professors of different colleges at Oxford?

Mr. Cross: I have received a large number of representations from both sides.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the beneficent influence of this movement, if a petition is submitted, will it receive careful consideration?

Mr. Crossley: Can my hon. Friend say what this group has to do with Oxford?

Mr. Gallacher: It has more to do with Hitler.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORATION OFFICIAL'S DISCHARGE, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health whether, after reading the evidence of Mrs. Devlin, at Liverpool Assizes, he is prepared to reinstate her; if not, is he prepared to recommend compensation for loss of office in addition to her retiring pension?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The question of reinstatement is one for the Liverpool Corporation themselves. In the circumstances obtaining in the present case there is no power to pay compensation for loss of office.

Mr. Logan: In view of the correspondence that I have sent to the Department, is this not a case where the Department ought to enter into consideration of the case of an official who was discharged without substantiation of the charge?

Mr. Bernays: We have no authority to interfere.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the account of the slander action at Liverpool assizes last week; has he read the strictures of Mr. Justice Stable, who said that the proceedings of the subcommittee, as disclosed in the shorthand notes, were a travesty of justice; and does he intend to ask the Liverpool City Council to remove the chairman and other members from this sub-committee or what action does he intend to take?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend has seen an account of this case in the Press. He has no power to take any action in the matter.

Mr. Logan: Do we understand that no matter what goes on, corruptly or otherwise, in any council, or any defects in regard to an official who has had over 20 years' service and is unjustly discharged, and when a judge presiding in court makes the statement that he did make, the Department have no right of intervention?

Mr. Bernays: No, Sir, but there is, I understand, no question of corruption in this case at all; as a result of the judicial proceedings, that was made quite plain.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware, from the correspondence that 1 have sent to the Department in regard to this case, of the strictures of the Judge, who distinctly said that it was an absurdity and a travesty of justice? What more do you want than a Judge in court making a statement like that? I want to know, in regard to a poor woman being discharged, what you intend to do to remedy the injustice that has been done to her.

Mr. Bernays: It is entirely a question for the local authority. As I understand it, this woman was discharged on the ground that through her health she was no longer fitted for her job, and as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, there the matter ends.

Mr. Logan: But you know that that statement is not correct and that the two doctors' certificates did not bear out that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK PRODUCTION.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual milk production of Scotland in gallons; and what estimated percentage is used by charitable institutions such as infirmaries and hospitals?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The total quantity of milk sold off farms in Scotland during the past year is estimated at 154,800,000 gallons. I regret that I am unable to estimate the percentage used by charitable institutions.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these authorities have estimated it at less than 1 per cent., and if that is the case, will he recommend the marketing board, in view of the small quantity of milk involved, to reduce the price of milk to these charitable institutions?

Mr. Wedderburn: We have made inquiries from the local authorities and the marketing board, and it is impossible to obtain any estimate of the amount of milk used by all the various charitable institutions.

Mr. Leonard: Is it not the case that the charitable institutions themselves have made representations indicating that the amount is less than 1 per cent.?

PRISONS.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in Scottish prisons, censorship of newspapers issued for the use of prisoners still prevails; the type of articles affected; and who directs the deletions?

Mr. Wedderburn: Censorship is exercised only in the case of newspapers issued to convicted prisoners, and is at the discretion of Prison Governors. Cases of censorship are relatively infrequent, and the articles deleted have been reports of criminal cases.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of prisons in Scotland, and of that number those still awaiting the installation of electric light?

Mr. Wedderburn: Of the 11 prisons in Scotland, those at Inverness, Peterhead,

Kirkwall, and Lerwick are not at present equipped with electric light. Electric light is now being installed in Inverness, and installation in Peterhead will be commenced this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement on the commission of experts which has been sent to Southern Rhodesia to examine the possibilities of refugee settlement there; and, in particular, whether the projected settlement is entirely agricultural or general in character?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I understand that various inquiries have been made as to the establishment by refugees of one Or two industries and a small agricultural settlement in Southern Rhodesia, but I am not aware of any visit by a commission of experts to the colony such as that indicated by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON AND WOOLLEN INDUS- TRIES (YOUNG PERSONS, EM- PLOYMENT).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young persons are covered by the inquiries now being conducted in Manchester and Leeds, respectively, as to the hours of employment of young persons in the cotton and woollen industries?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): These inquiries, which relate to the question of permitting the employment of young persons under 16 for more than 44 hours a week, cover the cotton and woollen industries generally. Whether longer hours than 44 should be permitted, if at all, for such young persons throughout those industries, or only for certain classes of factory or certain processes, is a matter for investigation by the Commissioners holding the inquiries, who have not yet completed their work.

Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many young persons are covered by the employers' application?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I have not got the number:

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to press the Home Secretary, but can he not tell me the number of young persons involved?

Sir S. Hoare: I have told the hon. Member in the answer to the question that they will be the young people employed generally in the cotton and woollen industries. I have not got the number.

Mr. Ridley: May I, with your indulgence. Sir, ask the Home Secretary whether, since it is obvious that the number of young persons involved in these inquiries must be not only considerable but considerably greater than was contemplated by the Act, he will consult the House before making his decision in connection with the application?

Sir S. Hoare: I am carrying out, both in the letter and in the spirit, the Factories Act passed last year. A commission of investigation is sitting on the matter, and I do not think I can express an opinion on the merits of the case until I get the report of that inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES (HOURS OF LABOUR, YOUNG PERSONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether, before agreeing to any exemption from the provisions of the Factories Act covering the hours of labour of young persons, he will consult with the Board of Education, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Labour as to the possible consequences of such action on the education and health of such young persons and the possible effects of the employment of adults in those factories?

Sir S. Hoare: Section 71 of the Factories Act, 1937, provides that regulations permitting the hours of young persons under 16 to exceed 44 in a week in the case of particular classes of factory or processes may be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied, as the result of a public inquiry at which persons affected are entitled to appear, that certain conditions are fulfilled. One of these conditions, which were settled by Parliament after full Debate, is that the increased hours would not be likely to be injurious to the health of the young persons. The question whether, before reaching a final decision as to making any such regulations, I should consult any other Ministers must depend on the circumstances of the particular case

including the findings of the Commissioner who has held the inquiry.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, before he comes to a decision on this case, that in the Lancashire cotton textile industry there is more unemployment and under employment probably than in any other industry in the land?

Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly take that and all other relevant factors into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAND ACCIDENT (FOOTBALL MATCH, LIVERPOOL).

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the collapse of the grandstand at Rochdale on 1st April, 1939, on the occasion of the Rugby League cup semi final, when one man was killed and many others were injured and taken to hospital; whether he can state the cause of the accident; and whether he will take steps to see that all such stands are regularly inspected, certified to be safe, and over crowding not allowed?

Sir S. Hoare: I have obtained a report from the Chief Constable of Rochdale; I understand that the inquest on the deceased was opened yesterday and adjourned to 18th April, and after the inquest has been concluded I will obtain further reports and consider whether there is any action that I can take.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSAULT ON BOY, EAST LONDON.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a boy, Leslie Silverberg, aged 14, of Wapping, who was beaten with an iron bar by youths professing Fascist sympathies; and whether he will consider augmenting the police in the East End, with special instructions to detect and punish Jew-baiting?

Sir S. Hoare: According to a statement made by Leslie Silverberg to the police, he was walking along High Street, Wapping, when a group of about eight lads between 15 and 17 years old kicked a football at him. He ran away but they chased and caught him, asked him whether he was a Jew, and punched him on the face, causing a cut on his lip. He informed the police that one of the lads


had a piece of iron in his hand, but he was not actually threatened or struck with it. Silverberg reported the incident at Wapping Police Station, and a constable accompanied him to the spot, but the assailants had disappeared, and Silverberg was unable to furnish their description. The hon. Member may be assured that all necessary steps are and will be taken by the police to prevent any recrudescence of Jew-baiting in the East End.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Jewish people in the East End are terrorised by these gangs, and in view of the frequency of unprovoked incidents of this kind has not the time come when he should take stronger action?

Sir S. Hoare: I am always watching the situation very carefully, and as a result of the action we have taken—the prohibition of processions, and so on—I can tell the House that there have been very few incidents of this kind in recent weeks.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he observed a case two weeks ago when at a political meeting a Fascist got up—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (PIG INDUSTRY).

Mr. Magnay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the specific terms on which it was agreed to give Exchequer assistance to the pig industry in Northern Ireland?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): Assistance to the pig industry in Northern Ireland is to be given from the Exchequer of Northern Ireland under legislation passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament. No financial assistance to the pig industry in Northern Ireland will be given by the United Kingdom Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL-POOL COMPANIES.

Mr. Broad: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the football-pool companies also engaged in retail storing are subject to separate assessment of Income Tax on their retail business as apart from football-pool business?

Captain Wallace: All business profits are liable to assessment to Income Tax, but where businesses are carried on by separate companies each company would be separately assessed.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is this company allowed to set off its losses on developing retail store businesses against its profits on the pools, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if so, the Board of Inland Revenue is financing those businesses?

Captain Wallace: This question is put down in general terms. There is no reference to any particular company, and if the hon. Gentleman likes to ask about any particular company I will give him any information I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DOMESTIC SERVICE).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour how many permits were issued to women aliens in 1936, 1937, and 1938, respectively, to take up employment in private domestic service; and whether he has any information as to the total number of such permits in issue at any recent date?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The numbers of permits issued by the Ministry of Labour in respect of female foreigners from abroad for employment as domestic servants in private households during 1936, 1937 and 1938, were 8,031, 12,897 and 13,757 respectively. I am unable to say how many of the foreign domestic servants for whom permits have been issued are still in employment in this country. I should add that since the annexation of Austria in March, 1938, the Home Office have authorised the issue of a number of visas to enable women refugees from Greater Germany to enter this country for employment in domestic service. The number of such visas authorised up to the end of 1938 was approximately 1,300.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BLIND-ALLEY OCCUPATION (INQUIRY).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider setting up a committee to investigate the effects of blind-alley occupation in adolescence upon a person's liability to unemployment


in later life, and to make recommendations for reducing unemployment based on the facts disclosed?

Mr. E. Brown: I have recently asked the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment to undertake an inquiry into blind-alley employment.

BENEFIT.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour what facilities are provided for unemployed men with families who attend for a course of instruction at a residential gas school when such men are not avail able for work at the Employment Ex change as usual?

Mr. E. Brown: In general, an unemployed man attending an A.R.P. school is not on that account debarred from receiving benefit or assistance. The arrangements under which such training is given vary in different cases, and I am taking steps to ensure that benefit is paid in all cases in which this is permissible under the existing law.

Mr. Anderson: If I bring a case to the right hon. Gentleman's notice will he inquire into it?

Mr. Brown: I will see that it is dealt with at once.

WINTER ALLOWANCE, PONTEFRACT.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in which winter allowance has been stopped in the district covered by the Pontefract area office?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Board that the only cases in which winter allowances have so far been stopped are those in which there has been some material alteration in the applicant's circumstances. I regret that information regarding the number of such cases is not available.

Mr. Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been undue haste in stopping these allowances, and is he aware that, for large numbers of the unemployed, it is always winter?

Mr. Brown: That is not so. These are cases in which there has been some material alteration in the circumstances of the applicants.

DETERMINATIONS.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that determinations of unemployment are being issued with the determination back-dated a fortnight, and that the space in the form for the date of its issue is left blank; that this practice is likely to deprive the applicant of his, or her, right of appeal as the date when he received it cannot be proved, whether he will issue instructions that this practice should cease; and that all such forms must contain the actual date of issue, and be signed or initialled by the officials who issue them?

Mr. E. Brown: The standing instructions provide that the date on which a determination is issued is to be filled in and if in any instance that has not been done the omission must be due to an oversight. If the hon. Member is aware of any such cases and cares to let me know, I will have inquiries made. I am assured by the Board that so far as they know no difficulties with regard to the exercise of rights of appeal have arisen from such omission.

Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions so that this practice which has grown up is stopped?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that it must have been an omission or oversight, but I will make sure.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT (CZECHOSLOVAKIA).

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Prime Minister the position of Czecho-Slovakian sugar quota under the International Sugar Agreement since the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia by Germany?

Mr. Butler: The situation, as it effects the Czecho-Slovakian sugar quota, arising out the recent action of Germany in that country, is at present doubtful, and I am unable for the moment to make a statement on the subject.

Captain Evans: Are His Majesty's Government considering the situation and whether it is necessary to make overtures to the German Government?

Mr. Butler: As I said, the situation is at present doubtful.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS, OVERSEA CANDIDATES).

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many candidates from the Dominions and Colonies have been accepted for appointment to commissions as pilots in the Royal Air Force during the past year?

Sir K. Wood: The number of candidates from the oversea Dominions and from the Colonies who were accepted for appointment to commissions as pilots in the Royal Air Force in the past year is 517 which, I am sure the House will agree, is a very helpful contribution.

Mr. Maxwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he anticipates that this satisfactory situation will continue for the following year?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (MURDER OF BRITISH CONSUL).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make to the House concerning the assassination of His Majesty's Consul at Mosul, and if this was in any way connected with the death of His Majesty King Ghazi and the general political situation in Iraq?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government have heard with profound regret of the tragic death of Mr. Monck-Mason. I understand that shortly before noon yesterday a crowd gathered in Mosul to mourn the late King Ghazi, whose death at an early age has aroused feelings of deep sympathy, which I know the House would wish me to express. The crowd was worked into a passion by agitators who declared that the British Government were in some way responsible for the King's death. Such allegations are, of course, without the slightest foundation. Our reports state that the British Consulate was stormed and the Consul murdered before the local authorities had time to act. Troops and police were called out at once, and four men, who are believed to be responsible for the murder, were arrested. Martial law was declared and order restored. In the afternoon the Iraqi Prime Minister called at the British Embassy at Bagdad and expressed to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires the deep sorrow of the Iraqi Government at the tragic events in Mosul,

which he said had been a terrible shock to himself and his colleagues.
His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires impressed on the Prime Minister the very serious view taken by His Majesty's Government; and the Prime Minister, after stating that he had taken special precautions for the safety of British subjects and their property, gave the following undertakings:

(1)A public expression of regret will be made by means of a resolution to be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament to-morrow;
(2)The late Mr. Monck-Mason will be accorded a public funeral at Mosul with full honours;
(3)The strictest investigation is being made to fix responsibility;
(4)The Prime Minister is discussing with his colleagues the payment of a suitable grant to Mr. Monck-Mason's dependants;
(5)Full reparation will be made for the damage to the property of His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that this outrage indicates the existence of any widespread system of anti-British propaganda in Iraq?

The Prime Ministers: I certainly should not like to say that, but I think in these parts agitators have no difficult task in working up excitement.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (SPEECH).

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement about the official request made yesterday by the Government to the Press that they should not publish the instructions given by the First Lord of the Admiralty recently regarding the manning of the anti-aircraft guns of the Fleet?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the First Lord this morning and he has explained to me the circumstances in which the remarks were made which, apparently, created some sensation. The occasion was the initiation of a new scheme in connection with the showing of films in the Navy. My Noble Friend's speech was unpremeditated, and it is quite


untrue that, as has been suggested, he invited the Press to give special prominence to it. In the course of his remarks my Noble Friend drew attention to the fact that there was not a full attendance, as some of the men were retained on board their own ships in readiness to man their guns, as has been the normal practice in time of tension. No other orders had been given by the Admiralty than that this practice should not be relaxed even on so special an occasion.
With regard to the subsequent proceedings, I was informed in the course of the evening that considerable comment had been aroused by an early report on the wireless of what my Noble Friend had said. I understood that this report had not been broadcast in this country, though it had been on the Empire broadcast. Since it seemed to me likely to be treated, as in fact it has been treated, as a sensational matter, whereas there was no reason or foundation for any sensation, I gave directions that the Press should be asked not to publish the account of the First Lord's speech, or, if they did publish it, not to ascribe to it any particular importance. Apparently my efforts to spare the public unnecessary agitation were not altogether successful, but the incident will, at any rate, have served to demonstrate the constant readiness of the Navy for all eventualities.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not making light of a rather serious subject; and may I ask, after this rather partial disclosure, whether he would like to read to the House the statement which was actually made by the First Lord? Then I should like to ask him whether, in view of the existing serious position internationally, and the possible grave crisis which that statement might have created abroad—and a responsible statement if it were pre meditated would make the crime doubly worse—

The Prime Minister: I said that it was not premeditated.

Mr. Greenwood: I am saying it was not premeditated, and in that case my point to the Prime Minister is all the stronger—in that case does he regard the First Lord as a fit person to hold an important office in His Majesty's Government; and will he give an assurance that

such indiscreet, irresponsible and unpremeditated statements shall not be repeated in future by responsible officers of the Crown? I was going to ask him, but he has cleared up the point, on whose authority the denial was issued.

The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend has expressed to me his great regret that his words, which perhaps were not very happily chosen, should have given rise to so much comment and to such unnecessary alarm, but I do not think an incident of this kind really affects the general efficiency of my right hon. Friend as head of the Admiralty, with which I am entirely satisfied.

Sir A. Sinclair: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is his action in interfering with the freedom of the Press in publishing this which has ensured for the First Lord's statement redoubled publicity, not only in this country but in every country of the world, and is it not better to leave the Press to discharge their own functions without interference from the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so at all. I think it is right and proper for the Government from time to time to make requests to the Press—and it was nothing more than a request—and I have always found that the Press are always most courteous and ready to comply with any request of a reasonable character; but in this case I must take the blame for action which certainly did not produce the effect which I wanted. It was done solely with a view to trying to prevent unnecessary agitation in the minds of the public.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Would the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the words that were used by the First Lord in the report of the speech which we have seen? He said:
Unfortunately, shortly before I left the Admiralty it became necessary to give orders to man the anti-aircraft guns
Did not that imply in the public mind at once that an international crisis was arising, that some rumour had been received at the Admiralty, so that special defensive measures were necessary; and if that were not so, was it not most unwise to make such a statement; and how can the Prime Minister in such circumstances think that this House can trust such a Minister in times of international tension to continue in office and to take charge?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman is making more of this than is necessary. I asked my Noble Friend whether he recollected using those exact words and he could not recollect exactly what words he used, but it is a fact that there were no fresh orders but only orders not to alter the orders already in existence. It was because I thought the words as reported would give a wrong impression that I thought it was desirable to make that request to the Press.

Mr. Greenwood: Does the Prime Minister not think that those words, however incautiously used, and having been, perhaps, mistranslated and embellished, might easily have caused the precipitation of the kind of dreadful thing we do not wish to happen? Is it not conceivable that in circumstances of this kind incautious statements like that might precipitate war? In those circumstances, is the First Lord of the Admiralty a man fitted to make responsible statements to the public?

The Prime Minister: I think it is desirable that in times like these everybody should be very careful what they say. My Noble Friend will take special care after the experience he has just had.

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Five of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Governnment Business be exempted, at this days Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 101.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cross, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Crossley, A. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Culverwell, C. T.
Higgs W. F.


Assheton, R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Holmes, J. S.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hopkinson, A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
De la Bère, R.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Denman, Hon. R. O.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Beechman, N. A.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hulbert, N. J.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Duggan, H. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Elliston, Capt. G, S.
Keeling, E. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Holderness)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kerr. J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brass, Sir W.
Errington, E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Leech, Sir J. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fildes, Sir H.
Lewis, O.


Bull, B. B.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lindsay, K. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lipton, D. L.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gibson, Sir G. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Butcher, H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Goldie, N. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McKie, J. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Granville, E. L.
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.


Cary, R. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Magnay, T.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mander, G. le M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon, H. D. R.


Channon, H.
Grimston, R. V.
Markham, S. F.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guest, Hon. L. (Brecon and Radnor)
Marsden, Commander A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hannah, I. C.
Medlicott, F.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mellor, Sir J, S. P. (Tamworth)


Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)




Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Thomas, J. P. L.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salmon, Sir I.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Munro, P.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Nail, Sir J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Touche, G. C.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Sandys, E. D.
Train, Sir J.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Owen, Major G.
Scott, Lord William
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Palmer, G. E. H,
Seely, Sir H. M.
Turton, R. H.


Patrick, C. M.
Selley, H. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Peake, C.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Captain W, T. (Forfar)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G S. Harvie


Pilkington, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J, A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wedderburn, H, J. S.


Porritt, R. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Smithers, Sir W.
White, H. Graham


Procter, Major H. A.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Wise, A. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Remer, J. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
York, C.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sutcliffe, H.



Rosbotham, Sir T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rowlands, G.
Tate, Mavis C.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.


Beaumont, H. (Bailey)
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bellengar, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Leslie J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dagger, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Maxton,.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Milner, Major J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.Comdr. R. T. H.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. O. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Bill,

Exeter Extension Bill, with Amendments.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.

Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix) brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Wheat (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Acland, Mr. Alexander, Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, Mr. Drewe, Mr. Haslam, Captain Heilgers, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Maclay, Mr. John Morgan, Mr. Price, Mr. Quibell, Mr. Ramsbotham, Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, Captain Shaw, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Mr. Snadden, Sir John Train, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. T. Williams, and Mr. Young.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That Mr. Thornton-Kemsley, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 18th April, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th April], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Question again proposed.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: In this Debate on a partly agreed Measure we are mainly concerned in getting elucidation of various points and raising matters that have been brought to our attention by those who will be responsible for implementing the Bill when it becomes an Act. There are matters that are of great importance to local authorities. The first question I ask was raised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). As far as I know, after having listened to much of the Debate yesterday and after having read the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning, no reply was given to the question. Put shortly, the question is, whether the Lord Privy Seal is to be the co-ordinating Minister, the one authority under whom are to be gathered up all the points relative to air-raid precaution regulations instead of their being distributed over a number of Departments.
The other question relates to the expenses that will be thrown on local authorities. We are anxious that this point should be settled before the Money Resolution is taken, for when that Resolution is passed it will be too late to do anything. I know that the London boroughs are interested in this subject. There are local authorities which have raised the point whether some limit is to be put to the expenditure that is to be thrown on to the local rates. There are precedents for such a limit in other Acts of Parliament; for instance, a limit is sometimes laid down that the expenditure shall not exceed the product of a penny rate. In this matter, if the whole cost is to be thrown on the local authorities it will be a very severe burden, particularly on the smaller authorities, and it will be impossible for them to implement the Act when they are called upon to do so.
Another point relates to factories and utility undertakings. Employers are called upon to provide refuges for their

employés. My question is whether the local authorities are to have some right of inspection of those refuges in order to satisfy themselves that the refuges are fully up to requirements. Such a right would help the local authorities considerably in understanding exactly what is taking place within their areas. Before such works are executed are local authorities to be consulted? The local authorities have the right to be considered in other respects, and it would be as well if they were consulted in this matter. There is another point with regard to owners of commercial buildings. When they provide air-raid shelters of an approved type it may be desirable for the local authorities to be authorised or required, at the request of such owners, to issue to them a certificate that they have carried out their legal obligations in this respect. It would save a good deal of overlapping if the local authorities were empowered to carry out that task in order to be satisfied that all the legal obligations had been met.
Then there is the question of the training of employés. A number of private employers are making arrangements for their employés to be trained in their working hours. It has now been decided that a certain number of them should be qualified to render first aid, and here is a matter on which some local authorities wish for a lead. It is presumed that such training would be provided at the expense of the employer, but Clause 18 does not state whether local authorities are expected to give assistance in providing lectures or equipment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory explanation on this point. Finally, I would refer to Clause 34 which enables the Minister,
after consultation with such persons having professional or other special qualifications
to make regulations, as to the construction or alteration or extension of buildings. The Committee which will consider the Bill may think it desirable that the Minister should first consult also the local authorities. The points which I have raised cause considerable concern. They have been considered by local authorities, who have requested that the matters shall be raised and some answer given, so that they may make the necessary preparations to implement this Measure. The points


vary in importance, but the one of outstanding importance which it might be worth while to consider is whether it is possible, where provision has not already been made in the Bill, to put some limit on the expenditure which this Bill will throw upon the local authorities.

4.16 p.m.

Sir C. Granville Gibson: I would first thank the Lord Privy Seal for the clear and lucid way in which he yesterday explained the Bill. The success of the scheme which he outlined will depend upon the loyal co-operation of employers throughout the country. A number of employers have taken no steps whatever in regard to the provision of air-raid shelters, but there is no reason why we should be surprised at that, because some employers have not known what to do. They have had no code or instructions, or any practical assistance from the Department of the Lord Privy Seal. No doubt when the code has been issued to them during the next few days it will be of very great help and they will have some idea of the steps they ought to take in order to make the necessary provision.
In some cases employers are busy on armament work, and many are prosperous, but many factories and workshops in the North of England, especially in Lancashire and Yorkshire are not doing well at all. Many employers in these cases will find it difficult to provide finance in order to take care of precautionary measures. I know there are to be penalties, but it does not matter whether penalties are in the Bill or not; if a firm has not the wherewithal to meet the cost, the air-raid shelters will not be made. I know the case of a firm in the Midlands which I mentioned the other day. At the present time it is in financial difficulty although it is employing 200 or 300 people. The firm is considerably indebted to the bank and it cannot get any finance from that direction for air-raid shelters. It is carrying on under a moratorium granted by the creditors, and the moratorium has already been renewed once. That firm is not in a position to make any monetary payments at all. What is the use of providing penalties for a case like that? Although such cases may be a small minority, they are unable to put down any money.
I know another case of a woollen manufacturer in the West Riding of

Yorkshire. About 12 years ago his firm spent between £50,000 and £70,000 to build an additional mill. Owing to the bad time through which they have been going they closed down one mill. For 12 years the firm have not paid any dividend to their shareholders, and to-day they are not as well off financially as they were 12 years ago. The point is not that such manufacturers should not be called upon to make provision for their employés, since they have a duty to protect them, but that some assistance should be given. I do not suppose the Government have any power to grant a loan to those people, but, at any rate, I suppose the Government could go to the extent of guaranteeing a loan from the bank, or payment for making the provision required. A loan could be a prior charge on the business and be repaid over a period of, perhaps five, years. If steps were taken along such lines where firms are unable financially to pay for precautionary measures, the situation would be eased and firms would be enabled to proceed as they should, after the information is in their possession. The Lord Privy Seal intimated yesterday that the code will be issued immediately after Easter.
The proposed contribution from the Government of 5s. 6d. in the £ in respect of expenditure on these shelters is, in my opinion, too small. I know that some people will feel that the Government ought to pay the whole or most of the cost, but that would mean that there would be waste. Many people would not take the care which they would if they had to bear a part of the burden. At the same time, I feel that 27½ per cent. of the cost is too low. There are some cases, such as blast furnaces, which are to have a contribution of 50 per cent., and I do not see any reason why the same percentage should not be granted to all firms who make proper provision.
On the question of obscuration and light perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will make the position still more plain. According to my reading of the Bill there is no provision for payment on the part of the Government in respect of obscuration. I was reading an article referring to a statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, which said:
The present position is as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th March, 1938. A number


of items of air-raid precautions expenditure are allowable as deductible expenses, including the cost of training and equipping employés, providing material for obscuring lights and certain fixtures not forming part of the permanent structure.
I believe those are the words of the Lord Privy Seal, relating to an answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). The Chancellor enumerated the items as follow: Civilian duty and service respirators; protective clothing for staff engaged on air-raid precautionary duties; the training of employés in such duties; covering of glass with wire netting; dark blinds, screens and paint to render windows opaque; equipment and stores for first-aid parties, equipment of decontamination squads. Here, on the one hand, it is stated clearly that those are deductible expenses; on the other hand, according to my reading of the Bill, they are not allowed at all. We should be glad to have some information, and the point cleared up.
There is the question of the difficulties of the acquisition of land in some cases.. Very large towns are almost completely built up, and there is no available land on which to build air-raid shelters. No doubt the Lord Privy Seal will remember a case put to him at a conference two or three days ago by one of my friends concerning a firm not far from London who had purchased a number of houses consisting of cottage property in order to have available adjacent to their factory land on which to build air-raid shelters. They paid an average price of £400 per house, but in the middle of the plot one house is left, and the owner of the land is holding out for £5,000. That seems an unreasonable and unfair position to take up, and some power should be given to the Lord Privy Seal or to the local authorities compulsorily to deal with property in a case of that description.
Power should be given to construct beneath existing works, such as railways and roads, tunnels from factories to places where shelters are to be built. In a congested area, the only way to get quickly from a factory to a shelter would be by means of a tunnel or subway. Local authorities or the Lord Privy Seal should have power to grant the right to build, where such tunnels and subways would

be necessary for the safety of the employés in getting quickly to their shelters. Is there any limitation of distance from works to shelters? In most cases shelters might be quite a distance away, and if a warning came employés might not have time to get to them. Who is to be the judge whether the work is satisfactory to qualify for payment? I suppose in such cases it would be the factory inspectors. Are any regulations laid down or suggestions made as to how large a shelter should be for a certain number of employés? What is the minimum of cubic feet that should be allowed for each employé?
Finally, with respect to obscuration, it will entail tremendous cost to firms who have a lot of glass to their buildings. I was wondering whether it would not be reasonable to obviate the necessity and the expenditure of obscuration of lights in factories or workshops, by the whole of the works being blackened out simply by pulling out an electric switch in the electric power-house connected with that factory. In my own works, the whole place can be blackened out by pulling out three switches in one little room, and allowing for pilot lights when the blacking out takes place. This plan could quite easily be followed upon the receipt of an air-raid warning, as long as there were an obligation on the part of the firm that at sunset on any day, or, at any rate, at lighting-up time, there should always be a man on duty at the switch. If that were done, the black-out could take place and employés would be able to leave the works with suitably shaded pilot lights. That would obviate the necessity for enormous expenditure in the case of many firms whose works are run almost entirely by electricity. 1 hope that these considerations will receive the attention of the Lord Privy Seal, and that at the earliest possible moment the code will be in the hands of those of us who are connected with industry, so that we can proceed, knowing what we ought to do—as we have not in the past—to take the steps that are necessary to fulfil the obligations placed upon us by the Bill.

4.31 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: The Lord Privy Seal, in a public statement which he made the other day, said that people generally had not real appreciation of what this country would have to face if we were engaged in another European


war. I think we must judge this Bill, as we must judge all A.R.P. measures taken by the Government, by the magnitude of the problem with which we are faced. It was made abundantly clear in the Debate yesterday, and it had been made abundantly clear so far to-day, that there is no one who dissents at all in principle from any part of the Bill, but I think we can complain, and we do complain, that it does not go far enough in several respects.
I would like to revert to a question which was discussed by many Members in the House yesterday, but to which practically no reference was made from the Government Front Bench. That was the question of deep shelters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said yesterday that the Bill gives no indication of a comprehensive policy on shelters, and he pointed to some very serious gaps that still exist in the Government's policy of this vital matter. So far, the Government have resolutely refused to make up their minds on the question of deep shelters. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which he used some time ago in another connection but about the same Government, they are resolute in their irresolution. They have had time; they have had technical advice; they have had experts of every kind at their command; and if they have now come to the conclusion that on technical grounds they cannot adopt a policy of deep shelters, I think it would be far better that they should say so. The lamentable thing about the present position is that the Government will make no announcement or decision as to whether they think deep shelters are necessary or not.
I should like to quote a body that is making a scientific investigation into A.R.P. The Air Raid Defence League have come to the conclusion, after investigating the matter very carefully, that it is not a question of deep shelters versus shallow shelters. You cannot, they say, adopt exclusively the one or the other. The Government have provided a type of shallow shelter which is said to be blast-proof and splinter-proof, but which—and this is a point that has not yet been met—is not sound-proof, and that is likely to become a much more important matter than, perhaps, we realise at the moment.

We have been warned that the great cities of this country may be subjected to continued bombing, not for hours, but, it may be, for days. That was tried in Barcelona in the later days of the Spanish war, and there was continuous night bombing of villages and towns in Catalonia. We may be quite sure that what was done in Spain will be done here on a scale that has never before been attempted.
When we imagine the nervous tension and strain to which the population will be subjected in a day of continuous bombing, when we remember the large numbers of people who during the War suffered from shell shock and other kinds of shock, and whose lives were completely shattered by it, and when we remember also that one of the main purposes of aerial bombardment is to break the resisting power of the civil population, we must count this shock which will inevitably come as a very definite element against which some kind of protection must be provided, but certainly is not provided by what is called the Anderson shelter. There are certainly areas in this country where the risk of air raids is so great that shallow shelters cannot reduce it to tolerable dimensions. I think that that is a view which is very generally held. Whether it is the view of the Government we do not know, because they have not yet expressed any specific opinion on the matter, but there are certain parts of the East End of London, certain parts of the City of London, certain parts even of Greater London where the industrial concentration is very great, and where it would be of enormous advantage to an enemy if damage were done and great dislocation of the industrial life of the country were created. That is the case also in cities like Coventry, which are almost completely target areas. I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Health later in the Debate something about the problem of evacuation. That is a very important corollary of the shelter policy of the Government, but it does not solve the problem of these particular areas.
The representative committee on evacuation over which the Lord Privy Seal himself presided recognised that a very high proportion of the central activities of the country is carried on in areas which might be exposed to severe aerial bombardment. They went on to


say that Greater London contained one in five of the insured workers of this country, and that they were informed by the Ministry of Labour that 62 per cent. of the London workers were engaged in industrial groups which would be particularly important in war time for production, commerce and government. The Minister of Transport said last night that the Government did not feel that they were in a position to give advice to industries in this country as to whether they should move out of vulnerable areas or not. I wish, at any rate, that the Government would assure us that they would discourage, and, indeed, if necessary, place restrictions on, the growing concentration of industry in vulnerable areas, and that we shall not have a repetition of the extraordinary decision to put a new aircraft factory in Birmingham, which is already an armament centre and a very vulnerable centre.
What are the Government going to do to protect those areas, which undoubtedly will have a very large war-time population? There are the Anderson shelters; there are the shelters provided by employers, which may or may not be bombproof. I cannot believe that employers—and I say this in no disparagement of them, for I feel sure they will take their part in making their workpeople safe—are in a position to go to the enormous expense, or that they will go to the enormous expense, of providing bomb-proof shelters for their workers, even in these vulnerable areas, and there is no compulsion upon them to do so. What, then, is going to happen to these people? I should also like to ask what plan the Government have in mind for people who may be caught in the streets in an air raid during the rush hour. After all, there were many raids at such hours in Spain. I believe that in Barcelona, Catalonia and Valencia in one month, namely, last January, there were 53 daylight raids and only 10 night raids, apart from the terrible all-night bombing which happened at the very end of the month. Of course, in this country, the risk of daylight bombing will be greater, because the defence will be far better equipper—or at least we hope so. The chances of inflicting damage and injury are infinitely greater in daylight, and there are occasions when an enemy may think that the risk will be worth taking. At any rate, we must

take into account the probability that there will be a very considerable number of daylight raids, and, if daylight raids are made, it seems likely that the time chosen will be the time when the greatest number of people are in the streets.
What do the Government contemplate that these people will do? The right hon. Gentleman may say that there are trenches, and that is true, but there are numerous areas in London where there are no trenches, no open spaces and no parks within 10 minutes' walk, or even more. We are told that there may be only five minutes' warning. I am thinking of places like New Oxford Street and the Mile End Road. I do not know of any great open spaces or parks where there would be considerable trenches for the large day-time population in those two areas. It may be said that there are basements in the neighbourhood. I have not very much faith in the safety of a great many basements that will be adapted for Air-Raid Precautions, but in all probability the basements in the area will have been adapted for the number of workpeople employed in the particular factories or shops to which they are attached. I can visulalise a real panic if an air raid happens in the day-time and in the rush hour in a place of that kind, where there is no special protection available.
Under the Bill, grants are to be made to local authorities for deep shelters. I do not believe that the local authorities are likely on any large scale to build deep shelters on their own account. The financial responsibility will be tremendous if these shelters are to be adequate for the protection of the people. I think that this matter should be one for the Government; I do not think that they should pass the responsibility on to the local authorities. The Government alone are in a position to survey London, for instance, as a whole. They have every possible advice, they have every expert at their disposal, and they will be in a far better position to judge in what particular areas and at what particular points it is essential that public shelters should be built. It is an entirely wrong principle that this vital matter of public shelters should be left to local authorities, and become a great financial burden to them, so that the deciding factor may well be, not the need of an area for shelters but the expenditure that would be involved.


We were assured by the Home Secretary many months ago that this was not a question of expense; and, obviously, in a matter where life and health are concerned, the matter of cost should not be allowed to interfere with the progress of schemes.
But there is no reason why these shelters should be a dead loss. The hon. Member who spoke just now referred to tunnelling. I was disappointed that the Minister of Transport made no reference last night to the Bressey Report, in which there are a great many proposals for relieving traffic blocks in London which would involve tunnelling. There is also the question of car parks. As long ago as 1925, the Automobile Association advocated underground car parks in London: quite apart from the risk of air raids, purely as a practical measure; and the London County Council Committee reported 10 years later, in 1935, that car parks of that kind would save the community an enormous expenditure of time, energy and money. Plans have existed, in a state probably of partial preparation, for years. I think that in November, 1938, it was reported that the London County Council and the Home Office were giving the plans joint consideration. It is said that there are also schemes in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, and in several London boroughs, for car parks, and that the delay in carrying out these programmes is because the Government would not contribute their share to the cost. There is provision in this Bill for a contribution. I do not think the contribution will be very large, because it is merely for the expenditure necessary for adapting the car parks as air-raid shelters. It is very difficult to assess what exactly that contribution will be.
Another question to which I want to refer is that of tubes. Undoubtedly, some of the tubes in London are unsuitable. Some are too shallow, and there is grave danger of flooding in others. In June, I asked the Government whether they were taking steps to survey the tubes, and the Home Secretary said that the Government had plans under consideration for the modified use of all the tubes as transport and their limited use as shelters. I would ask for further information as to whether those plans have advanced: whether a survey is being made, because it is an enormously important

point. If certain tubes could be adapted they would cover a very wide area. I would urge the Government to come to a conclusion about deep shelters. It would add enormously to the confidence of the people. They are still hedging on this vital matter. One of the really significant things about the Lord Privy Seal's speech yesterday was that he made absolutely no reference to a Government policy on deep shelters. The Home Secretary, when he was in charge of A.R.P., said that the provision of deep bomb-proof shelters could be considered only as part of a long-term policy. In that case, I should have thought that the sooner the Government embarked upon it the better. They cannot shelve consideration, and they cannot, and should not, be allowed to cast the responsibility on the local authorities. It is a vital question of policy, and that must be the definite responsibility of the Government. I once more beg and urge the Government to make some announcement on this vital matter of policy, which, I believe, is essential to the safety of the people.

4.51 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The hon. Lady who has just addressed us did so from a disinterested point of view, as the representative of a constituency which, I suppose, would be able to shelter a great many people from the vulnerable areas. I feel that deep shelters, to which she referred, are a matter to which we should give our attention. I know that the Lord Privy Seal has given an enormous amount of attention to this question, and one of the difficulties, I believe, has been the regulations of the London County Council. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is not here, because I know he is giving his attention to it. If you are going to make deep shelters for use in time of war you must devise shelters which will bring in some sort of commercial return in time of peace, such as car parks. The head of the London County Council Fire Brigade says he will not allow deep shelters to be used as car parks unless there are vents to allow explosions to spread outwards. Should there be a fire in a car park, and should it make an explosion, that explosion must be able to go outwards. If you are to have a shelter for use in an air raid you want exactly the reverse of


this; it must be blast-proof from the outside. That is the difficulty that two or three of the borough councils are in now. I trust that, very soon, the A.R.P. officers and the head of the Fire Brigade will be able to reach a compromise which will enable these shelters to be made.
In regard to tubes, I would point out that in an air raid it would be a matter of great concern to keep the traffic running and to prevent an ugly rush of people whose nerves were not altogether normal, and that there would be great danger, both on the lifts and on spiral steps, far greater than any of the dangers from the raiders. Any regulation in relation to tubes must be a matter of discussion between the authorities, because it is essential to keep the tubes operating for the evacuation of population. I should be sorry if, as a result of this Debate, people were made to feel that they had ready at hand in the tubes shelters to which to remove casualties. This is a matter to which London Transport are directing attention, and I have no doubt that a very good scheme will be evolved before long. There is a great danger that people will get an impression, though I am sure hon. Members do not intend to convey that impression, that we are paying too much attention to the protection of individuals here, and not giving sufficient attention to what really matters most—our offensive and defensive power. It should be said that we recognise fully the importance of seeing that our anti-aircraft guns, and certainly the tactics of counter-attack by aircraft, should be very effective indeed, but I think we must recognise it is the duty of the Government to provide this other protection, because the more effective it is the less inducement there is to foreign countries to attack us.
There are certain problems to which we must have an answer to-day. One is in regard to evacuation. I have in mind a place within 30 miles of London where there are some very essential factories, which have been put up recently, with very great pressure on the existing housing—and other houses are very much wanted. I was astonished to find that that place, where there are 28 factories, some doing work of national importance, is being selected as a place into which people are to be evacuated from London. That is something which

ought to be investigated very quickly, because it disturbs the local authority very much to feel that, apart from their own problems and the risk of a locality like that being singled out for direct attack, people should be brought there from areas in London which may not be so vulnerable. I feel that places where armament works of that character are being carried on ought not to have the business of the local authority made more difficult by having an unspecified number of people brought from London.
I asked the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, before he resumed his seat, whether he could differentiate between factories of national importance and ordinary factories. There are certain factories which have been told by the various Departments of State that, in all circumstances, the production must be maintained and output continued, even in the event of a series of raids. That imposes on the management and those responsible for the factories an additional obligation to their workers over and above that of a good employer. I think there ought to be something in the definition Clause which would make it quite clear that if you have to ask your workpeople to continue to work in all circumstances, and not to disperse, it is no good telling them, as I know an inspector did, that they should lie down by their machines. That is no use. You have to provide more complicated protection in close promixity to their work.
In one factory that I have in mind there are a large number of women workers. It is possible to provide protection for them in deep shelters, but I asked representatives of those women what they would want to do in the event of an air raid, and they all said, with one voice, that the first thing that they wanted to do was to run home and see whether their families were all right. In the case of a factory doing work of national importance, there is an obligation to make the married women workers feel that their children are to be evacuated, which is an additional argument against bringing into an area like that people from London or elsewhere. Factories of national importance might, for these purposes, be classified as public utility factories, or whatever description one might coin for them, and should be put in rather a different category. As the


Bill is drawn, there is no mention of them whatever, as they are all classified as one. The matter is causing great concern to those who are responsible, because it means spending a very large sum of money in providing the proper shelters. That money will not be grudged, but they want to know in what proportion it is to be paid, and whether it is to be paid out of revenue or is to be a capital charge. These are matters upon which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will give us some enlightenment.
There is the matter of the training of staffs. One of the most remarkable things in the last few months has been the amazing way in which workers of both sexes, with the representatives of the trade unions, have got together and enabled themselves to become proficient either in first-aid or something of the sort. We are building up now a really magnificent body of trained people in all factories who are able to look after casualties, and so on. If we are to be successful in that, it is necessary to provide casualty clearing stations and accommodation of that kind, especially in a factory where something like 3,000 people are employed. There is no regulation, as far as we know, which enables the management of a factory to collaborate in the general hospital scheme of the district. It is of the greatest importance that something should be done about that, because there are, up and down the country, possibilities of relieving the pressure upon the ordinary casualty clearing stations and the hospitals by improving the accommodation at the factories where first-aid treatment will be given. The staffs who have undergone this training are most proficient and well able to give the attention necessary to the patients.
I should like to ask for some lead from the Government in regard to shipyards. In several cases the people working in shipyards have naturally to work at all hours, and all day long. I know one myself where the local authority insisted that the regulations should be carried out and shelters dug down of the approved type, and in spite of telling them that, being a shipyard, they are almost at sea level and that if they dug down three feet, and the tide came in, up would come the water. But they still had to do it. One of the managers asked one of the officials to read the story of King

Canute and then to pass it on to the local authority. One would think that the best protection would be for the workers to get inside the hulls of the vessels which are mostly warships, which by their very nature are designed to keep out splinters. It is a little irksome when people are doing their best to have little jacks-in-office come down and stick rigidly to regulations without recognising the laws of nature or the desires of man. It may be that in the code something could be done to put some of these people wise as to what we want. I beg of the Lord Privy Seal to repeat his instruction, of which he assured the House when he first took office, to take the public into his confidence and to remove this secrecy which has done so much harm, and is the screen behind which gross inefficiency goes to sleep and prevents good work being done.
I feel that in the criticisms brought forward in this Debate, it is very wrong to ignore the tremendous volume of work that has been done by his Department in all branches. The organisation that he has been able to establish will one day be looked upon as the most marvellous piece of British improvisation that has ever happened. The officers in charge of the various departments have been most helpful to local authorities, and all the cloud of confusion that existed in the autumn has to a great extent been removed. The confidence which the big mass of the people have in the system is very largely due to the fact that there is a feeling that under the Lord Privy Seal and his Department passive and civil defence is being put where it should be, but I think also, there is a considerable danger that we might destroy the morale of our own people by making them think that they are rabbits and want to get into holes rather than encourage a great many of them to take part in active defence of the country, which is, after all, the greatest protection that our land possesses.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regret that I cannot re-echo the penultimate words of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), because, as Chairman of the Air-Raid Precautions Committee of the County Councils' Association, I presided at a meeting this morning at which there were complaints from all over England and Wales at the way in which it is still


impossible to get from the Lord Privy Seal or from any of the other Government Departments definite decisions on matters of urgent importance in regard to the organisation of civil defence. I read in a book yesterday that in war there is only the present tense, and that is a very important maxim to be borne in mind in the position of urgency in which we find ourselves. Let me take the question which has been alluded to again and again in the course of this Debate of the deep air-raid shelter. I hold no brief for it. I am not a civil engineer. The country did pay me a great sum of money, more than I had ever earned before, when as a sergeant-major in the Royal Engineers during the War I constructed a car park in France that would have been cheaper if it had been paved with sovereigns, because it was thought that, inasmuch as I was a Royal Engineer, I must be able to do any kind of engineering work.
I hold no brief for the deep air-raid shelter, but after the months and months that it has been before the Department, a wrong decision would be better than no decision, because while there is no decision, the local authorities who have prepared schemes for deep shelters are getting on with nothing else, and the people who have not decided one way or the other are waiting for that decision. I hope that before very long the Lord Privy Seal will be able to announce his decision on the matter one way or the other, or he should say that he would leave it to the discretion of the local authorities, and that where he is convinced that they have a sound engineering scheme he will pass it in certain areas, even if he is not prepared to do so in others. Until we get a spirit in which decisions can be taken, I am sure that these complaints will continue.
As I understand that the Minister of Health is going to reply this evening I want to deal first of all, with the question of evacuation. I would take his mind back to the very wet Monday afternoon of last week when he and I went round my constituency, and I was able to show him what his Department has classified as a neutral area. I have never heard him mention in this House a higher figure for the population per square mile in this country than 80,000, but I took him through one ward of my constituency where the population is living at the rate of 90,624 to the square mile, and in six

of the wards in that constituency, totalling 342 acres, 40,000 people are living, that is, over 70,000 to the square mile on an area of half a square mile. I believe that I proved to him conclusively, with the aid of the borough engineer, that in the whole of that area there is not a house or a tenement which has a backyard of sufficient size to accommodate one of the Lord Privy Seal's air-raid shelters. We have been asked how many we want. The answer is that, while we would like to have a great many, we do not quite know what we can do with them. The only suggestion that the Minister himself could make was that we might cut down some of the dividing walls and put a shelter for two houses in the joint back yards of adjoining houses. That is a neutral area. I suggest to the Minister of Health that an area which is liable not merely to air bombardment but to sea bombardment, and where the people are so crowded together, is one which must receive further consideration. I hope that in the very near future the right hon. Gentleman will be able so to revise the scheduling of areas as to make it possible for such areas as my constituency and the greater part of the Tyneside to be included in the area that is to be evacuated.
I want now to deal with a point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) yesterday. It is a matter which, on behalf of the County Councils' Association, I have urged upon both right hon. Gentlemen more than once. It is the problem of the self-evacuating persons. That, again, is a matter which I brought up personally at the first conference that was held in the presence of the Lord Privy Seal after his appointment. Up to the moment no decision has been reached. We may be faced in an emergency with exactly what occurred in September of people streaming out of London and the other crowded districts, from areas which may not be vulnerable at all and taking up the accommodation that has been reserved by the local authorities for the people who are to be evacuated. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for his attention.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I was discussing with my right hon. Friend the very point which has been made by the hon. Member. Surely, it is very desirable that counsel should be taken upon it. If it is not done at the time, it tends


to be left out altogether. There is no discourtesy intended.

Mr. Ede: Really, both right hon. Gentlemen know that I mentioned this point to them, collectively and separately, over six months ago, and, of course, if it is now to be treated as a matter of emergency and to be discussed between them in this House, one wonders what is the use of going on with the Debate.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is quite unjust. The hon. Member in raising these matters does not expect one to sit like a dummy and make no attempt to deal with them. He knows—as indeed he would discuss a matter with an hon. Friend next to him—that when he puts a point to me across the Floor of the House, the interchange of a sentence with the Lord Privy Seal is not only not discourteous, but courteous to the hon. Member.

Mr. Ede: I have no intention of giving way on this point at all. If it had been merely a sentence, certainly I would not have complained, but there was a continuous conversation going on during the course of which the right hon. Gentleman was apparently finding some amusement out of the matter which I was putting to him, and that led me to make the remarks I did. We might get back to the position that we had in September where people were streaming out of London and other centres, taking up the accommodation which had been booked in some cases by the local authorities for housing children who were to be evacuated. We must anticipate that again, unless regulations are made to prevent it. I am prepared to admit that we shall always have a lot of people living in less vulnerable areas who will receive relatives from the vulnerable areas, but that should be arranged for well in advance. What I am afraid of is that we shall find during the emergency that someone living in a Welsh valley, who can speak nothing but Welsh, will be receiving a family from the East End of London, on the ground that they are relatives, and who can speak nothing but Yiddish. On the last occasion the most astounding sums were offered for very inferior accommodation by people who were flying from the wrath they imagined was coming.
I can see no reason why there should not be fixed a date by which those arrangements should be completed, and

the receiving authorities should be allowed to schedule certain accommodation as having being reserved for relatives. I can see no reason why people in vulnerable areas who do not think that they can do work of national importance in time of war should not be allowed to go to their local authority and get a certificate saying that they are people who could, with advantage, be evacuated in time of emergency. They should be able to go and register accommodation with a receiving authority, and the accommodation for them should be regarded as booked; but after a certain date it should be made quite clear that that kind of thing cannot go on, otherwise I am sure that if and when the emergency arises and people are taken from the big cities and the towns to houses in which accommodation has been promised, it will be found that the accommodation has been booked during the previous few hours or minutes by people who are in a position to offer, at any rate temporarily, a substantial sum of money in order to secure the accommodation. There should be a decision on this matter at the earliest moment. Unless we get a decision a good deal of the work of the receiving authorities will be very difficult.
The Minister of Health has said, quite truly, that the problem of receiving is ten times as great as the problem of evacuating. Therefore, I would ask him to reach an early decision, that can be promulgated in regulations, which will enable us to deal with this question of the evacuation of persons.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member has twitted me with not having reached a decision. A decision has been reached, as has been stated again and again. We have taken compulsory billeting powers, and there is no intention of allowing any overriding of those arrangements, particularly for the billeting of children, by unreasonable arrangements. That decision has been come to a long time ago.

Mr. Ede: The sooner we see the regulations the better.

Mr. Elliot: The regulations would only be made under the Defence of the Realm Act. There will be such regulations, and that statement has been made again and again and I make it again now.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his interruption, because it reminds me of a point I have


missed. We were told yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal that this is not a Defence of the Realm Act, but a Defence of the Realm Act will be brought in and regulations made under it when the emergency arises. I do not know how much nearer we are going to get to the emergency than we were in September. We are told that we were only saved by a miracle from having the emergency upon us within a very few hours of the time when the Prime Minister was speaking. The whole point of the remarks that I have been making is that it is essential that these regulations should be made well beforehand. If we are going to wait until we get into the same position that we were in last September, and then at some later stage issue regulations, a good deal of the harm that I have been speaking about will have been done. I hope that the regulations will be published well beforehand, so that everybody will know exactly the conditions under which evacuation and other operations will take place.
I want to allude to a matter which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), and that is the position of the catchment boards and the inland waterways. The Minister of Transport, replying last night, said:
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth ('Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) raised an extremely interesting point about catchment boards and referred to the possibility of parts of Lincolnshire being flooded as a result of damage to sluice gates. In so far as damage to the works of the catchment board might lead to injury either to property or persons in the neighbourhood, the responsible scheme-making authority, which would probably be the county council, could include those works in their air-raid precautions scheme, and could arrange for the catchment board to be their agents and to do the necessary work on their behalf; and if that were approved by the Minister, the work would rank for air-raid precautions grants. The matter is rather better when examined in detail than my hon. and gallant Friend thought"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939; cols. 2747–8, Vol. 345.]
I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member thought, but I should think that nothing could be done which would more overwhelm the county council of one of the three parts of Lincoln, or the county councils in the neighbourhood of the Wash than having to face the possibility of bearing their share, after the percentage grant has been paid, of carrying out these works. In this matter I speak for the

County Councils Association, and especially for the county councils affected. The catchment boards should be put in the same category as canals and similar waterways and treated as public utility undertakings. Inasmuch as both canals and catchment boards are, we understand, in a very bad state financially, they should be allowed a very high percentage grant in securing assistance for maintaining their banks, their sluices and other works necessary to protect the inhabitants from the danger of flooding due to the action of the King's enemies.
The administrative county of the Parts of Kesteven is already bearing a rate of 3½d in the £ in the present financial year for air-raid precautions. We were assured by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) reminded us, that in no circumstances would the charge exceed a penny rate, but the West Riding of Yorkshire has already a 4½d rate, the Parts of Kesteven a 3½d. rate, and Nottinghamshire just over 3d. In regard to the Surrey County Council so overwhelming were the figures which they were asked to put in their estimates, that they put in a token figure of 3d. in the hope that negotiations during the year would relieve them of the possibility of having to ask for more. To ask the poorer county councils, such as the county councils of Huntingdon, Cambridge, the Isle of Ely, the Soke of Peterborough, the three parts of Lincolnshire, and Norfolk, to shoulder the responsibility of protecting their people from floods through the breaking of the banks of the catchment boards and inland waterways that are embanked, is more than their financial resources will enable them to undertake.
There are many other points with which I should like to deal. I am tempted, like the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon to say "there is another matter" until I have exhausted nearly every Clause in the Bill; but most of these matters are Committee points, except one, for which I would ask the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. There are a number of undertakings of various kinds which have administrative offices in London, the cities and the big towns, while their works are in the country. It may be very desirable that they should be in a position during an emergency to remove their administrative offices from the centre of the city out into the country


where their technical or other works are situated. It will be necessary in such circumstances for them to provide living and sleeping accommodation for a considerable number of staff. I am the chairman of such an authority, and we are in this position, that if we want to erect an ordinary air-raid shelter at our country works, if it is in an area scheduled by the Minister we are released from restrictive covenants and can carry through the work.
It is within my knowledge that the Central Electricity Board have made arrangements whereby their administrative staff will be taken out to a place that I know very well where there were very severe restrictive covenants, but the persons who enjoy the privilege of those restrictive covenants have agreed to waive them if the requirement is for a case of national emergency. My authority is in exactly the same position in providing electricity, but those who exercise the restrictive covenants against us decline to release us for the purpose of providing living and sleeping accommodation for the administrative staff, whose work is essential if the supply of electricity is to be carried on over a considerable area. I have made up my mind that if the emergency arises I shall put up the accommodation and chance what will happen to me, but I do not care to proceed on those lines. Here, again, I think we should be put in a position beforehand, by a slight extension of the principle of Clause 12, to ensure that we shall be able to make such adequate and necessary provision.
There is one final point. I cannot understand why Clauses 50 and 51 are differently worded. Under Clause 50 the Minister of Transport is given certain powers, and Clause 51 gives the Minister of Health certain powers, for the acquisition and holding of stocks and plant. The Minister of Health has taken further provision that he may make arrangements for the acquisition and holding on his behalf of stocks. That provision has not been sought by the Minister of Transport. I should have thought that it was even more necessary in the case of the Minister of Transport, who may be called upon to maintain the vital communications of the country, that he should have the same additional power that is given to the Minister of Health. I hope also that it will be made quite clear that the

Minister of Transport's stocks are held in such a way that local highway authorities who may want to utilise them, may have the opportunity of doing so if the emergency arises, where it is of importance that the restoration of communications should take place at the earliest moment.
I do not join in the congratulations showered on the Minister in connection with this Bill. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney that this Bill is several years too late. The great disappointment of my life has been the Lord Privy Seal. When he came to office I thought that he really was going to show us how a civil servant would be able to show Ministers the way round. Unfortunately the Ministers have convinced him that there are difficulties in administration which the Civil Servants have never comprehended. I am sure that unless considerably more speed is shown in recent decisions to deal with this problem the fate of his Department will be in the balance if an emergency should arise.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Patrick: I propose to keep the House for a few moments only because I want to deal with one point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clear up when he comes to reply. Clause 10 of the Bill refers to a code for occupiers of factories. It says:
The Minister shall issue a code describing different types of shelters appropriate for different classes of cases
Will that code include the provision for some form of deep shelter to meet those cases where no other form of shelter would provide adequate protection? I have in mind one factory which I know well, although there are many others in the country. It is a modern type of factory in which for the sake of light and ventilation the window space has been exaggerated in comparison with the area of the walls. I do not know the precise ratio between plate glass and brick, but it is very high. The whole thing is built of light flimsy steel work, so light that it was not possible to put concrete on the roof as a protection against incendiary bombs. There is no basement worth talking about, and it will be impossible to reinforce the building. Most of the heavy machinery is congregated at the top and in the case of a direct hit it would


not be only a matter of the explosion of the bomb but also of the heavy machinery crashing from the top to the bottom. A most cursory glance shows that obviously the only way to afford anything like adequate protection to the employés in that factory is either by a good system of trenching in the neighbourhood or by deep shelters. In this case trenching is an impossibility, and so we are left with a deep shelter or nothing. I believe there are many cases like that throughout the country.
But deep shelters also brings up a question of finance. In the Financial Memorandum £4 a head is given as a rough estimate of the cost of a shelter, but I am afraid that in the case of a deep shelter the cost would be much higher, so high, indeed, that even prosperous firms ready and willing to strain their financial resources to protect their employés would find the task altogether beyond their powers. It is absolutely necessary that Clause 17 should be interpreted in the most generous manner in cases where deep shelters are the only possible thing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some reassurance on that point when he comes to reply. There is not merely an obligation on the part of employers to do what they can for those employed in industry; there is in many cases a direct obligation on the Government itself. There are many factories in this country which will have to work day and night, and unless some adequate provision is made it will not be possible to do that.

5.34 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: We are in this Bill constructing a mechanism for a very novel purpose. It is necessarily very elaborate and intricate, and a great deal of the Debate, though not all of it, has been devoted to discussing the skill with which this mechanism has been constructed. But in examining any mechanism you must consider also two other questions, first, the motive power which is going to be available to drive it and, secondly, the purpose for which it is going to be used. It is on those two questions that I propose to say a few words. I think that the motive power which is behind this necessarily rather cumbrous machinery is not sufficient. If we look at the inducements and compulsion which are here placed behind local authorities and employers

and ask whether it is really enough to get the job done quickly, the answer I think cannot be doubtful. We need to link up the whole of this mechanism to a much more powerful impulse from a central power station than we have at present. I fully recognise that the Lord Privy Seal in the five months in which he has held his office has done a great deal more than his predecessors in the Home Office in five years, and if I am now about to criticise him I would ask him to remember that I am doing so by the high standard which he himself has set in the rapidity with which he took his decision on deep shelters.
There is now, however, an almost universal impression that for the needs of the present time he is not going far enough or fast enough. This may result partly from the nature of his authority. He is executive as regards part of his work but for the rest his functions are those of co-ordination. If the job is to be done his co-ordinating authority must, I think, in regard to matters which an essentially related to air-raid defence amount to a compelling authority. I dc not know whether it does or not. If, for example, he comes to the conclusion that as regards one particular zone within a vulnerable area the conditions are such that basement shelters and steel shelters together cannot give anything like tolerable protection, that conclusion must be brought into direct relation with the scheme for evacuation for that zone, that is, a very much higher proportion of the people must be moved from it. I do not know whether at present the Minister of Health who has the execution of evacuation schemes now makes his own policy or, as I have suggested, takes it from the Minister for Civil Defence.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman has been impressed by the way in which every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to the question of deep shelters. There is a strong and very deep feeling throughout the country that this matter is not being satisfactorily dealt with. I agree that the demands on this matter are sometimes extreme and unreasonable. I do not take an extreme view about deep shelters. I recognise that if and when—I emphasise the if and when—the Anderson shelters are provided and installed wherever suitable, and if and when—and I here doubly emphasise the if and when—basement strengthening is carried out


in all suitable cases so as to give an equivalent shelter to that which the Anderson shelter provides, then I think the risk for a great majority of the population, even in what are called evacuation areas, is reduced to tolerable dimensions. You an: however left with a relatively small proportion, but still a population of a considerable number, perhaps between five and ten million people, for whom some additional shelter is absolutely necessary.
Incidentally, when I say "if and when" in regard to these two protective measures, I think it is extremely important to realise how far indeed we are at this moment from having satisfied this condition. Only a very small proportion of steel shelters have actually been installed. A lot are left about in back-yards. Moreover, only few people outside the class to whom they are being given free arc getting them at all. I entirely agree with free delivery to people under the limit of £250 and I might agree also in regard to priority of supply, but it should not be a monopoly of supply. I do not suspect this Government of trying to establish the rule of the proletariat simply by keeping alive only those who have not more than £250 a year. But the actual position at the moment is that if you have more than £250 a year you are not getting these Anderson steel shelters. Let us, however, assume, though it is now a remote assumption, that we have carried out these two measures of protection, that is the basement shelter and the steel shelter. There are still a number of cases for which deep shelters, not complete bomb-proof shelters against a direct hit, but some extra shelter to that which is at present contemplated, is absolutely essential.
I think the extra shelter required will be for very different purposes and must be adapted to different conditions. In many cases it will not be so much a bomb-proof shelter as a shelter which will protect against near hits, nearer than the Anderson steel shelter will. The Anderson steel shelter not only does not protect against a direct hit but it does not protect against a near hit, though how near it has to be I do not know. May I state the cases shortly in which I think this extra protection is necessary? In the first place, there are certain zones within an evacuation area which are immensely more dangerous and immensely less capable

of being adequately protected by the present measures than the rest of the evacuation area. I would instance a district like the East End of London, where further shelter is absolutely essential. In the second place, some streets will remain busy even after measures of evacuation have taken place. I again urge upon the Government that it is absolutely essential to erect enough shelter arrangements of one kind or another at different points so that, having made their calculations, they can put up notices in peace-time to the effect that if the people are caught there they should "Go to such and such shelter." If the Government do not do that there may be panic rushes which will mean a greater loss of life than if there was no protection at all.
In the third place, there should be deep shelter accommodation for regions such as important munitions factories. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) referred to the necessity of having a respite against the continuous danger and noise which certain districts may have to suffer. If you have raids repeated day after day and week after week on a munition area it will be essential, if the workers are to go on with their work, to provide shelters which will do more than protect from splinters and blast. They cannot go on indefinitely without some better protection. The raiding may be such that they will not be able to go home and it may be such, going on week after week, that will try even the strongest nerves. There will have to be shelters that give greater protection, and also protection against shattering noise, from which the men will get, not protection every time there is a warning, but a respite after they have stood a good deal. In many cases there will have to be a place in which to sleep.
I urge the Lord Privy Seal to realise the strength of the feeling throughout the country that more must be done in the matter of deep shelters. The right hon. Gentleman realises, as I realise, that in many respects the public demand has been put extravagantly high and has not taken into account the extreme difficulty of large communal shelters because of the necessarily short notice of the warning that will be given. I realise those difficulties, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bulletin of the Air-Raid Defence League, to which the hon.


Member for Anglesey referred, he will see that considerations of that kind are taken very fully into account. But it will be fatal if, because of those reasons which apply only to the extravagant demands, he either delays longer or interposes a negative to almost any kind of deep shelters beyond the shelters which he has himself provided.
May I say in this matter that wherever there is some provision in the Bill permitting the construction of deep shelters, it will need a great impulse from the centre, rather than discouragement, if advantage is to be taken of those provisions? The provisions in the Bill for encouraging the construction of deep shelters are not very strong, and if they are to be made to work, they will require a great impulse from the Lord Privy Seal. What have we had? Practically the only relevant remark in his speech was the remark relating to car parks, in connection with which for a moment I thought something was going to be done. This remark was, however, of a distinctly discouraging character. I do not want to press this matter too far, but it is essential that we should have a positive policy for providing deep shelters in special cases, where necessary, and that then the right hon. Gentleman should put all the weight of his authority behind that policy.
I should like now to address a few remarks to the Minister of Health with regard to evacuation. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made very great progress, and I have no adverse criticism to make, concerning the arrangements he has made for the evacuation of school children; but here again, I suggest that in specially dangerous, vulnerable and congested areas—in zones such as the one to which I have referred—a very much larger proportion of the people must be evacuated, and that quite a different criterion is necessary. Yesterday, I was horrified to hear the Minister of Transport say that the Government would not take any responsibility for telling industrialists where they should go or what kind of risks they should run, and that in general they must look after themselves and decide from which places they should go and to what places they should go. The right hon. Gentleman to some extent modified that a little later, but I could not help feeling that it was his first statement rather than the modification which

reflected his mind. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will consider whether in such places as East London and the City of London enterprises that can do their work elsewhere should not be actively encouraged to go out to more suitable regions.
There are two final points that I want to raise. The first has reference to the blackouts dealt with in Part VI of the Bill. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) gave the House a picture of the sort of thing that might happen in a blackout to which people were not accustomed. I think there would be a good deal of difficulty of one kind and another if the blackout were complete and the people were not accustomed to it; but I am more concerned with the danger that if a blackout were suddenly ordered under the powers given in this Bill, it would be nothing like complete. I suggest that there ought to be repeated experiments with blackouts in order to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are workable.
Lastly, I wish to refer to publicity. I am sure that the Minister will need to do a great deal more, when he has taken vital decisions on principle—some of which have not been taken—to make them effectively known to all whom they concern; that is to say, in part the local authorities and in part the general public, whether air-raid wardens or other people. I wish to make a suggestion in regard to each of those classes. As I have said, I am sure it will be necessary to provide additional motive power to make the whole of this cumbersome and elaborate machine work. Could not the Lord Privy Seal use the Regional Commissioners and their deputies, who have now been appointed, in this capacity before a war comes? If they are to do their work and to carry out their very important task, they will have to become acquainted with the whole mechanism of protection against air raids before a war comes. Could they not be now given the responsibility, not to enforce, but to watch and report to the Minister how matters are getting on in their areas? I believe that with their authority and prestige, and the knowledge that they were going to exercise these powers in war they would be able to perform a most useful function now in this respect.
With regard to the general public and air-raid wardens, anyone who is in touch


with air-raid wardens knows that the great bulk of them are in despair because they do not know what they have to do when warnings come, and they are conscious of being ill-equipped to tell people what to do if an emergency comes. A great effort will be required to give them knowledge of the duties that will be required of them, and indeed of the public generally. I venture to repeat a suggestion that I have made before, namely, that the Lord Privy Seal might be able to make a very valuable use of the great private societies of every kind, not only for the purpose, which I previously suggested, of recruiting volunteers, but also of spreading knowledge as to the duties of different people in case of emergency. All these suggestions come down to the same main point—I entreat the Government to expedite their decisions on the main questions of policy on which they have not yet given a decision. There should then be a much more powerful impulse from the centre in order to make this great, cumbersome and intricate machine work more rapidly than we can rely upon it working as it is at present.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I want to put to those Ministers concerned with the development of this scheme one or two matters which interest hon. Members representing the Tyneside, and particularly some matters affecting my constituency, Gateshead. At the outset, I wish to compliment those responsible for the drafting of this complex and intricate Bill. The first thing that occurs to me is that this is a Defence Bill, and that civil defence is part and parcel of National Defence, and therefore ought to be considered and dealt with, as a national responsibility, by the Government. In working this Bill, the local authorities will act as agents for and on behalf of the State in this kind of defence, just as in other ways the Army, Navy and Air Force may work in conjunction with the local authorities. The principle in the two cases is precisely the same. To prove that this is so, let me remind the House that every politician is constantly saying that areas such as the Tyneside are in the front line, which will be the first to be attacked by any potential enemy. If war broke out, within a few hours the Tyneside would know all about it. It seems to me to be logical

that if the Tyneside is in the front line, and has to carry out these defensive measures under the co-ordinating scheme of this Bill, under the Lord Privy Seal, it must be considered that the Bill is in fact a Defence Bill.
Gateshead and Newcastle are deemed to be vulnerable. I wish to make a suggestion which I hope will receive consideration from the Lord Privy Seal. Should not the measure of relief be determined by the need for special forms of defence owing to geographical position, as well as industrial and dangerous occupations? I regret that this Bill has been cluttered up by the 1937 Act—perhaps that is too strong a term to use, but at any rate the Bill has been hampered by the 1937 Act. The whole position now is different from what it was in 1937. Since that time, amazing experiments have been carried out in the test tube of Spain, and all sorts of amazing results have come from those experiments, and may be used against us. In 1937, the Home Secretary assured us that we need not be alarmed about the cost, which would be only a rate of 1d. in the £; but at that time, when he was asked whether he would limit it to a rate of 2d. in the £, he refused to do so; so that it seems to me now, as it did then, that he had little faith in the recipe which he propounded.
I submit now, as I submitted then, that the rate basis is the wrong one. The criterion should be life and not property. The matter should be on a population basis. Let me point out what is the position in regard to Gateshead and Newcastle. In Newcastle, a 1d. rate realises £10,000, whereas in Gateshead a 1d. rate realises £2,000; the population in Newcastle is 225,000, as compared with 110,000 or 120,000 in Gateshead. The product of a 1d. rate in Newcastle is five times as much as it is in Gateshead, although the population is only twice as great. I suggest that one has only to state the proposition to see how absurd and indefensible it is. I suggest that the basis should be one of so much per head, with special consideration for vulnerable and distressed areas, such as the Tyneside and particularly Gateshead.
I was glad to hear the Lord Privy Seal say, in connection with the financial position of the local authorities, that the 1937 Act would be reconsidered next year


or perhaps sooner. I may be allowed to quote the right hon. Gentleman's words:
With regard to the general financial position of local authorities, naturally enough we have had to consider from time to time the position in which authorities, and especially the poorer authorities, are finding themselves, in view of the obligations which rest upon them to take action under the Act of 1937, and now, if this Bill is passed, under this still more comprehensive Measure. The hon. Member will recollect that the Act of 1937 provides for a review of the position of local authorities not later than three years from the coining into operation of the Act, that is to say, not later than the end of 1940, and I have no doubt whatever that that review, when it is made—and possibly it ought to be made rather earlier than was originally contemplated—will have to be an effective review"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939; col. 2658, Vol. 345.]
That is a promise upon which I am bound to rely and the sooner that is done the better. This is a matter which affects, not Gateshead only, but many other areas, and I would like to know how a distressed area like Gateshead is to carry on in the meantime. That is what bothers me. I know that deputations representing the mayor and corporation have been to see the Lord Privy Seal twice in the last month or so, but from what they told me it appears that they have not got any clear and decisive answer, because, I imagine that the Lord Privy Seal, with the best intention and will in the world, cannot give such an answer on a matter of policy. But in Gateshead and some other places the cost is not to be measured in pence in the pound. It may be shillings in the pound, and how on earth are we to do it? In the Explanatory Memorandum it is stated:
So far as can at present be estimated the amount of expenditure which will fall to be borne by local authorities from rate funds will be of the order of £300,000 … It is not possible for the reasons explained to estimate the amount of this expenditure.
If the "powers that be," in London, cannot estimate this expenditure, how are we to do it? It may be any old sum. This is not a businesslike way of proceeding and it is difficult for me, as the representative of a constituency like Gateshead, to counsel my folk on how they are to act in such circumstances. To borrow, knowing full well that we could not repay, would not be honest. We cannot increase the rates. They are now about 16s. in the £ and cannot be put

any higher, if we keep in mind the advantage to the town of inducing industries to go there. Even if there were only a token vote of say 3d. in the £ while we waited to see how the cat jumped next year—would that be honest? I think the Government ought to come to a definite decision in regard to the distressed areas, especially those areas which are vulnerable points and danger points because of the industries in them. We have everything that is dangerous on Tyneside, and that is one of the reasons why the Air Ministry would have nothing to do with establishments there, and what was true in that respect is equally true in this respect. Therefore, I ask the Lord Privy Seal to meet the municipal authorities' association as early as possible in order that plans may be discussed and matters arranged in this respect. I speak in no critical or carping spirit, but I hope that before the close of this Debate we shall have a very definite answer on this very serious matter, or at any rate that we shall have such an answer when we enter upon the Committee stage of the Bill.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Green: This Debate has been rather striking. In the first place there has been an endeavour on all sides to deal with the Bill in a constructive rather than in a critical and party spirit. I think every Member is impressed by the necessity for the Bill and desires, as far as is reasonably possible, to expedite its progress. The Debate has been marked by another striking feature. As far as I have heard, no Member has voiced serious objection to any principle embodied in the Bill, but practically every speaker has severely criticised omissions from the Bill. It is difficult to frame a Bill dealing with problems which are so unfamiliar and one does not envy the task of the Lord Privy Seal and his colleagues in putting through a Bill of such an unusual character. Its provisions are very costly, and when we take into account the amount of money which is envisaged as being necessary to implement them we wonder whether even when all that money has been spent on operating the Measure, we shall not still be in the position of having no adequate or reasonably effective protection against air raids. However perfect the Bill may be when it emerges, in the end it will have


to be administered by local authorities, and the relationship between local authorities and the Government will determine in large measure its effectiveness.
I regard the Bill from the point of view of a local administrator. I have spent most of my life on a Metropolitan borough council and I am fairly familiar with the position in which those bodies are placed with regard to air-raid precautions. A remark made to me only yesterday by the town clerk of a Metropolitan borough summarises the position. He said, "If an emergency arises within the next week or two our plans will be perfect—on paper." The borough engineer of a Metropolitan borough within the last few days remarked to me, "It is simply heart-breaking. We may get out schemes and specifications and put up plans, but we simply cannot get decisions from the Ministry." Is it not possible to cut out some of the circumlocution which at present exists in the relationships between local authorities and Government Departments? One of our weaknesses as a democracy—and the most democratic of us are the most conscious of it—is that we do not seem to have the mental outlook or the adaptability necessary for carrying out plans other than by the ordinary, every-day, peace-time method. We seem incapable of getting away from what has always been regarded as the normal procedure. If a local authority in London wishes to develop air-raid precaution plans, it has first to go to the Ministry of Health, then to the Home Office, then to the London County Council, and then to the district surveyor. By the time it has finished the war may well be over. A prominent local government officer in London the other day said, "If an emergency occurred this week-end, for all practical purposes we should be in well-nigh as deplorable a position as we were in during September"
Has the Minister not considered some means by which all this intercommunication between various bodies, which may involve questions of life and death to the population, could be avoided? Could there not be one central authority to which the local government body, say the borough council, could go and from which it could secure swift and direct decisions? In our borough we want to purchase a house and a piece of ground

for use as a decontamination centre. The property was in the market at a fairly cheap price. We put in for it. We knew that others were in the market who were prepared to offer more than the borough council. Consent had to be obtained before the purchase could be completed. That consent was asked for 19 days ago. Up till to-day it had not been obtained and if the borough council had not been prepared to "chance their arm" and purchase the property, not-withstanding what might happen afterwards, the opportunity for doing so would be gone. These are instances which are causing among local authorities, particularly in London, a feeling almost of dismay.
I mention another case. It was found necessary by our borough council to obtain a deep underground shelter for a report headquarters. We have in the borough an educational institution connected with the London University, where such a shelter could be constructed. The authorities of that institution placed no obstacle in the way. We were told that we could make the underground shelter in the grounds of the institute and plans for it were prepared. But I learn from the borough engineer that the college authorities approached him and asked him to get the job done during the Easter recess while the students were away. He was flabbergasted at such a request. He will be lucky if he can get the job through by the August recess. These difficulties ought not to arise and instantaneous decisions ought to be reached on these matters.
Further I wish that the Government would trust the local authorities a little more. Personally, I have a profound regard for the genius which has made our local authorities the pride of the civilised world. For 30 years I have been acquainted with their work and I know what they have accomplished throughout this country. Yet in matters of expenditure they are not fully trusted by the Government. They can spend 15s. on something which they require in connection with air-raid precautions, but if the price of the article reaches 15s. 6d. they have to go through all the procedure of obtaning consent from headquarters. I know that these plans are being made with the best intentions but in order to make them effective in a time of emergency, I beg of the Minister to devise a


method by which the existing delays can be avoided. I can give many instances and I dare say every borough in London could supply similar instances.
For example, we wanted certain buildings for use as first-aid posts. The only buildings available were schools. We selected certain schools, which we thought were suitable, and what are we told by the London County Council? We are told that it is impossible, as an air-raid precaution committee, to do anything while the school is in being. We cannot get in, we cannot adapt any of the rooms, we cannot bring in any of the machinery that will be necessary for a first-aid post until war actually occurs. The borough engineer also naturally has his point of -view about the work. It is all inoperative until an emergency is actually upon us. Then we can go into the school -building and make the necessary adaptations. These are not fairy tales, they are not imaginings; they are feelings which are shared throughout the whole of local governing London, and if something is not done, it may be that in the first instance the local authorities will be blamed, but the real blame does not rest with them.
In conclusion, I urge that some steps should be taken to make it easy and expeditious for local authorities to carry out the work that they are prepared and anxious to do, and that they are exercising the great self-sacrifice in doing, and yet they are met with these obstacles. I venture to assert that there is hardly a municipal official in London who is not suffering from a very severe sense of frustration, a feeling that all his best efforts are being curtailed and rendered ineffective because of all this circumlocution, which ought not to be necessary now that we have reached a time that appears to be so near to an emergency.

6.17 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: As far as I understand this Bill, it makes the provision that we all know of for the poorer sections of the community to get their shelters, and it makes many provisions in reference to employers, but there does not appear to be any provision to encourage the small householder who has a larger income than £250 a year to do something independently to provide a shelter for himself and his family. It would be a great

advantage if there was some such provision, so that he should not have to wait but could get on with something "on his own" I believe that the local councils in some of the boroughs would like to have power to borrow money with a view to facilitating the hire-purchase of shelters for this section of the population which comes just above the £250 income level. As far as I can see, that would not cost the Exchequer anything. In the ordinary way, on a hire-purchase contract, the payments are fairly big. It is not necessary, if anybody puts up a shelter, that it should be paid off quickly, but, on the other hand, the contractors would not want to wait for a long period for their money. The suggestion merely is that, if it be possible, the local authorities should be authorised to borrow money with a view to making advances to people in these towns, so that such people could immediately get on with putting up shelters of their own and be able to pay for them on the hire-purchase system over a longer period of time than is usual with articles which are not of immediate necessity.
I hope the Lord Privy Seal will consider that point. I am sure that it would be of very great assistance to a very large section of the population, and that it would lessen the pressure on the Anderson shelters and would be some inducement to this large class of persons immediately to get on with the job. As they would all be doing it locally and employing local labour, with local contractors, I think it would very much speed up the provision of shelters for a very large section of the population. I hope the Lord Privy Seal, or whoever replies for the Government, will try to give some indication as to whether this provision can be made.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I have risen largely to draw attention to one part of this Bill, namely, Clause 35, Sub-section (2), relating to the extinction of glare from burning pit-heaps. This is a very serious problem, and undoubtedly it is one that comes definitely within the ambit of air-raid precautions and civil defence. Many hon. Members, I am sure, are familiar with the attitude that we, as miners, have taken in relation to these pit-heaps. We have argued continuously, in season and out of season, that these heaps could have been largely or entirely prevented by


different methods of mining, such as stowing underground and so on, but the Government have never paid heed to our arguments, and to-day the question of burning pit-heaps is a much worse problem than it has ever been before, in that the new methods adopted show an entire neglect of consideration for anyone living in the immediate neighbourhood of these heaps, which, by new mechanical arrangements, are made conical in shape, rising up towards heaven.
It says in this Sub-section that the Minister of Health may serve on the owner of any mine in connection with which there is any accumulation or deposit of refuse which is burning or likely to take fire a notice to extinguish such fire within the period of that notice. We have this Clause in the Bill because of the possibility of air raids. We have had pit-heaps and wars before this, but there has never been any question hitherto about the extinction of these fires. The necessity has not arisen, inasmuch as we were likely to be bombarded only from the sea or by invasion, but now that we have aeroplanes, these pit-heaps would act as beacons and guiding points, not only to the immediate place where a particular heap is situated, but to the countryside far and wide. In Northumberland and Durham and, as the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) said, on Tyneside we have works of national importance—Admiralty shipbuilding yards, armament works, and so on—and because these burning heaps would act as beacons to districts some distance from them and thereby create a national danger, we have this Clause in the Bill.
I want to draw attention to the grant that is to be given towards the extinction or the subduing of these fires—a grant of 50 per cent. towards the capital cost. Notice is to be served on the owner, but he will pass it on, and I want to say that I have very little consideration or regard for the owner in this matter, because the owners in the past have had no consideration for the people who have had to suffer all the inconveniences, ill-health, discomfort, and spoliation of what was probably a beautiful countryside. As far as the actual capital cost is concerned, after the 50 per cent. grant, there is the other 50 per cent., and that may be a very considerable sum of money. That will be passed on. and under the method

of calculating miners' wages, this will be charged to the industry as a cost other than wages. Therefore, the miners themselves will find 87 per cent. of this 50 per cent., and I think that will be very unfair. The miners themselves have had no say or jurisdiction in the matter; they are not consulted whether pit-heaps shall be there or not. That is the responsibility of the owners and of the managerial side of the mine. To me, it seems just as logical to charge such an amount to the working miners' wages to meet this cost as it would be to say that where you have a dangerous piece of rock. running out to sea, and the necessity of building a lighthouse, the parish or district council where the lighthouse is situated should find the cost of building and of maintaining that lighthouse.
In extinguishing these pit-heaps national purpose will be served in defending the life of people far remote from our coalfields. Therefore, I would urge the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Health further to consider this question, because it seems to me that this applies throughout our coalfields—87 per cent, in Northumberland and Durham, 85 per cent. in other districts. The fact remains that whatever is the cost of this 50 per cent. over and above the grant, whether in Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, or Scotland, that cost will be a cost other than wages charged to the industry, and that 85 or 87 per cent. of whatever that cost is will be borne by the miners themselves. Therefore, I think that in putting this forward I am on fairly good grounds, in that it really is inequitable, and I trust that further consideration will be given to the point.

6.29 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I desire to draw the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to Part VIII of the Bill, in which it is declared to be the duty of every local authority to collect and furnish information necessary for the transference of the civil population from one area to another. A schedule of groups has been issued by the London County Council, under which first consideration is to be given to school children and their teachers, then to expectant mothers, then to the aged, and then to the blind, but there is one particular section of the community in which I think we are all intensely interested, though we do not say very much about


them. I am referring to the disabled ex-service man. That patriot, Sir Oswald Stoll, is confronted with the problem of finding means of transferring 138 such men with their families from the homes which he founded in Fulham. So that this question goes further than taking away children, aged persons and the blind. With the disabled ex-service man it is necessary to take with him his home and his remedial treatment. It also means great difficulties in transport. When men have to get about in wheeled chairs they cannot be wheeled 20 or 30 miles out of London. No provision seems to be made for that part of the community. It is all very well for us to talk about our compassion for these men; we ought to put it into practice. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to indicate to the authorities under Part VIII that something should be done to make provision to transfer these men and their families in the scheme of things instead of leaving them to go with the general population.
I would like to make reference to shelters and the like. Permit me to point out to Members of Parliament who have been members of the London County Council—I think they number more than 100—that an advisory committee was set up by that body in 1932. They reported in 1935. Among their recommendations was that the provision of garages which could be used as shelters under the many public open spaces such as the squares, presented no physical or insuperable difficulties, but nothing had been done by that great authority. Had the advice of that committee been followed many of our difficulties would have been resolved to-day. We would not have the horrid spectacle of Lincoln's Inn Fields being a mass of mounds, nothing being done but the digging of trenches and leaving their sides to fall in.
There are many well-meaning people who have been very busy pressing the Lord Privy Seal and those who are helping in connection with A.R.P., and asking why what they are pleased to term "bomb-proof" shelters cannot be provided. These people know nothing of the penetrating power of the bomb. They request that these deep shelters shall be provided under the whole of the streets of London. They have not the foggiest idea that the streets of London are something like 7,500 miles in length. I suggest to

my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that those who have no knowledge of engineering or building construction should be less vocal in advocating things which are quite impossible. If they would only reflect on the cost of running a tube under the streets of London and realise how long it takes, they would not be quite so vocal and they might leave it to the Lord Privy Seal and those who are assisting him in his difficult task and not make his task more difficult than it is.
It would not be fair to pretend that many people in London are satisfied. There is a feeling that it is difficult to get decisions. There ought to be no difficulty in getting some decisions. I know that not only the London County Council, but the borough councils and other people in London are perfectly willing to give their time, energy and experience in helping the Government to avert peril. I have no doubt that there are thousands of suggestions pouring into the Lord Privy Seal's Office, many of them impracticable. They can surely be dismissed and their A.R.P. ideas can be deposited in the W.P.B., but when local authorities show a disposition to help the Government it is a little disheartening to find that no decision can be arrived at. There are many minor decisions which might be determined by the Lord Privy Seal and those who are assisting him, while there are major decisions which should not be decided in haste. I believe I shall voice the sentiments of every Member of the House when I say that we are all willing to do what we can to aid the Lord Privy Seal in his enormous task and in the execution of the duty which he has so valiantly undertaken.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: This has been a remarkable Debate for the number of brief and excellent speeches It has been all the better because of their brevity, and still better because of their excellence. I hope that I shall not be out of step in brevity, although I cannot compete in the matter of excellence. I wish to deal with only three points and to put them in the form of questions? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), in opening the Debate yesterday, read a letter which drew attention to the fact that in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) there was still


an incomplete distribution of gas masks. That is not by any means the only bare area, either in the matter of gas masks or fire-fighting appliances. The other day in the "Manchester Guardian" I read a report of a meeting of the Cheshire National Service Committee, where it was stated that the lack of equipment and training facilities is acting as a brake on recruiting for the Civil Defence services. I should like the Minister of Health to say how recently a census has been taken to discover in what areas and to what extent of population there is still no complete distribution of gas masks, fire-fighting appliances and other training facilities.
I should like to have the assistance of the Minister of Health in connection with a problem which was recently addressed to me by one of my constituents. This Bill deals with civil evacuation. One of my constituents writes to say that he has accommodation in his household for one child which entitles him to a payment of 10s. 6d. a week. He is an unemployed man with one child, and that entitles him to 3s. a week. He desires to know whether in those circumstances there are to be at the same breakfast table two separate economic standards, one for the evacuated child and one for the child of the unemployed man; or whether there is to be at one end of the table a banana and at the other end of the table no banana; or whether there is to be a merging of the resources of the household to the disadvantage of the evacuated child compared with the more advantageous position in which it would be if it happened to be housed next door in the establishment of an employed person. I confess I find any answer to the conundrum impossible. The Minister of Health may be able to provide me with one.
In the matter of deep bomb-proof shelters, the Lord Privy Seal said in the last Debate that he was not going to be kicked or stampeded into a premature decision. I have tried with as much imagination as I can manage to command to visualise the Lord Privy Seal in the act of stampeding. It is a grave disappointment to me that what I am sure would be a deliriously enjoyable and amusing spectacle so far defies my most imaginative moments. It seems obvious, however, that if the Lord Privy Seal is to reach a decision about deep bomb-proof shelters,

he will have to be kicked or stampeded. In the same Debate the Lord Privy Seal talked about the encouragement of a defeatist attitude, but nothing more encourages that attitude in this connection than the constant change of policy on the part of the Government in Civil Defence. It seems only a year ago that we were discussing gas and nothing else. Indeed, the gas pamphlet is still available and contains all the necessary advice for making a room as gas-proof as it is possible to make it. It also gives the assurance that if you cannot do these things it does not matter. Indeed, so much virtue did the Government at one time attach to their gas-proof devices that the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, with evident enjoyment, described the remarkable discovery that the gas mask was good for asthma.
Now gas has gone and there have now come what are called the Anderson shelters. You cannot have gas-proof Anderson shelters. I do not deny that they are desirable, and I was strongly impressed with the point made by the Lord Privy Seal that in many circumstances the proximity of this shelter outweighs a number of other disadvantageous considerations. What corries a number of my hon. Friends and me is this. There are a considerable number of houses—we do not know how many, but the Government should know—in the East End of London and in the great industrial cities, such as Sheffield and Leeds, where, either because the backyards are paved or too small, or because there are no backyards at all, it is impossible to erect even an Anderson shelter. What sort of survey have the Government taken in connection with this matter? What information have they as to the number of houses where these shelters cannot be erected, and what provision is proposed to give some assurance to the people who occupy these houses that some kind of protection will be afforded to them? It would seem that the problem of deep bomb-proof shelters must be solved for these people apart altogether from the general considerations which have been so eloquently urged by my hon. Friends.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: We have had a very large number of quite short speeches, and I will emulate those who have spoken before me. I do not wish


to enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill, but to deal with rather broader considerations. I, and I think many on this side of the House, feel that this Bill is very late, but though it be late it is nevertheless hasty. The right hon. Gentleman has not got that amount of active co-operation and support from the local authorities which he ought to have if he wishes to carry out his scheme with success. Though this is a long Bill, I should have liked to have seen a much more comprehensive one, but introduced at an earlier stage; but the right hon. Gentleman, having decided upon this Bill, might have given fuller consideration to the claims of the local authorities. Many of my hon. Friends believe that he has not, if I may say so, quite "played the game" by the local authorities, who are being called upon to bear new and heavy responsibilities. I realise the complexity of the problem which he has to face. Administratively it is one of the most difficult problems, that of getting a new unified service operated by the State and local authorities in co-operation. That is not an easy thing to do, more especially when we are dealing with various services and various types of precautions—services which have not been used for this purpose before and precautions which are entirely new.
My complaint against the Lord Privy Seal is that, although his range of vision is gradually widening, the scale of operations which he regards as adequate does not appear adequate to me. I am certain that he has been doing his best, but I think he started with a wrong conception of the size of the problem, and it is no good to keep trying to stretch and stretch a scheme which was conceived on too narrow lines at the first. I think that is one of the weaknesses of the Bill—that it is not broad enough in its conception to deal with the problems of to-day, and with the fact that we have now swiftly to make provision of a kind which has never had to be made so fully before.
I said the other day on the public platform that our Maginot Line was not the British Navy but our system of Civil Defence. The new factor of terror from the air means that, as in all war, it is the spirit of the people that in the last resort makes victory possible, and in these

days it is more than ever important that every conceivable step should be taken to fortify the spirit of the people. Our Maginot Line is Civilian Defence in all its forms. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of this rather long Bill, has not yet provided the people of this country with the outlines of a scheme adequate to meet what may fall upon this country at any moment. Had the First Lords' statement precipitated certain potential enemies into swift action, the right hon. Gentleman's head would have been on a charger to-day, because it is undoubted that the right hon. Gentleman's plans are but little further ahead than they were when we were in the mess and muddle of September last. I would not give comfort to any foreign Power, but it is no secret to say that at that time Britain was defenceless as regards its primary Maginot Line, and though six months have since elapsed the right hon. Gentleman cannot say to-night that if the worst were to happen, and if the planes zoomed over London and provincial towns, he has an effective system of Civil Defence to meet them. That is a very serious situation.
I have noticed during my visits to the provinces, including the visit I paid last week-end, that there is a different spirit among the people from the spirit of last September. There is no feeling of panic among the people of this country now. There was last September.

Mr. Ede: Artificially created.

Mr. Greenwood: It is not due to the right hon. Gentleman that that panic has been dispersed. The reasons I will not enter into now. They are very largely political, very largely concerned with the feeling that Britain is now apparently recovering its soul and knows what it means to do if it is properly led by the Prime Minister and the Government. In my native county of Yorkshire last weekend I was very much struck with the quiet, calm confidence of the people, and with their spirit, but the right hon. Gentleman has not fulled his responsibilities to them. They will be brave enough when the hour comes, but they are deserving of a good deal more adequate protection than the right hon. Gentleman still has in mind. I would not criticise him for one moment; I have gently tried during several Debates in this House to


encourage him to greater efforts; but he is still halting by the wayside. He is still putting too heavy a financial responsibility upon local authorities. He is still not prepared to believe that in this tremendous duty which falls upon all of us the local authorities will play fair. I know as well as many people in this House—and one wants to be careful of one's words—the rather costive nature of the Treasury mind. They do not like to part with money. They can always find reasons for not spending money, overpowering reasons for not spending money; just as Ministers of the spending Departments, like the Minister for Health, if doing a great job, adore the idea of spending money.
This is essentially a national problem. We are dealing with the fourth arm of National Defence, as important in its nature as the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, but by the nature of things it must be very largely in the hands of local authorities to administer. But while I think that is inevitable, it does not mean that the burden ought to fall upon the ratepayers. Take the East Coast for example: from the poverty-stricken areas in the north to the agricultural counties further south, those areas are the first line, so to speak, over here, and the fact that they are poor ought not to deprive them of the resources which are essential for the defence of Britain, quite apart from the defence of their own particular areas. I say to the Government that to think in terms of £25,000,000 is but the beginning of their thoughts.
Every penny of the additional expenditure required for national defence ought to be a national charge. It is the duty of a local authority to have an efficient fire brigade service on a scale adequate to meet all the calls likely to be made upon it in normal circumstances. It is not the business of a local authority to shoulder the cost of providing the auxiliary fire brigade service which is essential in the event of war. If the local authorities can be trusted, as of course they can, to run their fire brigade services in the way they do now, they ought, in this impending danger and time of greater responsibility, to be trusted, without any fear that they will try to filch money from the Treasury, with the administration of the full cost of schemes which are an inevitable and essential part of our system of defence.

I hope, therefore, that while the spirit of our people is as it is to-day, the Government will think in much broader terms and show greater imagination in dealing with this problem than they have done hitherto.
We on this side cannot, of course, resist this Bill, it would be foolish of us to try, but we do not regard it as being adequate for the responsibilities which are in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. I am not pretending that his task is an easy one. It is a task which I should not willingly wish to shoulder at short notice—I am a good adviser, anyhow—but we feel, and I believe many hon. Members opposite share the views of my hon. Friends here, that the Government's mind is still not sufficiently open to a realisation of the scale on which these services ought to be conducted. Though it might mean heavy financial sacrifices and greater direct taxation that fact ought to be faced, because I think it is the Government's first duty, its rearmament programme being in hand, to do all it can to keep up the spirit of our people and to give them that confidence without which we cannot win a victory should a war come.

7 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure that none of us has listened to the heartening and encouraging words of the present Leader of the Opposition without a feeling of renewed confidence. The tribute which he paid to the spirit of our people is a well-merited one. Those who, like myself, have gone about the country in recent weeks can all bear testimony to the firm resolution with which the people are facing these new and unparalleled difficulties with which they are now confronted. Perhaps the word "unparalleled" is not fully justified for, after all, the defence of the people against hostile attack is one of the oldest responsibilities, not merely of the national but of the civic authorities in this land. Let us never forget that we have had to face grave dangers before, and the word "burgh," whch means a town fortified against raids, bears testimony to that. Raids are no new experience of our people, and defence against those raids is no new thing either. In fact one may quote from one of my favourite ballads. We remember how
Horatius kept the bridge
In the brave days of old


We remember also how a council of the city fathers was held and how the Consul gave the warning:
'Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down"'
and how the city fathers turned out and defended the town. We remember, too, how compensation afterwards was given from the city lands—a grave dereliction of duty, because it was a transfer from community possession to private ownership.
There is still the Financial Resolution to be debated, but we have now come to one of the important points in the long two days' Debate in whcih we are engaged—the Second Reading of the Bill which is now before the House. It is common ground that that Second Reading will be passed without a Division. The House is eager and anxious to get down to the more detailed examination of the Bill. The fact that the Committee stage of the Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House will enable every Member to contribute his or her share to the discussion and, let us hope, to the improvement of the Bill.
It is certainly no party Measure. It is a Defence Bill in the widest sense of the word, and a Defence Bill, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, which brings the local authorities right into the picture. It cannot be worked without the good will and the assent of the local authorities, and the local authorities, as we know, are of every political complexion. Therefore, if it were being passed by a party Government in this House, which will not be the case, because I believe the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading, it would have to be operated in the widest non-party sense in the country. For unless the local authorities take it up with enthusiasm our efforts at the centre will be of no avail.
It has been said by hon. Members that there is a sense of frustration in the minds of the local authorities, and a difficulty in getting decisions, and those of us in the central Department also feel that difficulty. Every complaint that could be made against circumlocution can be borne out from the experience of the central Department itself. We none of us are guiltless in that respect. We shall have to do our best by a spirit of co-operation

to deal with these problems as expeditiously as we can. The Parliamentary Secretary and I, myself, have done what we could by holding regional conferences, going down to towns where representatives of the local authorities have been assembled, in Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff, Tyneside and elsewhere, to try and short-circuit some of those difficulties. I believe that only by personal intercourse shall we get rid of the enormous flood of paper which is pouring from the central Departments upon the heads of the unhappy officials in the towns and counties in the Provinces. Those of us who go down and see the local authorities are told by them that it is almost impossible for them to take on more work, that the difficulties of keeping up with this civil reorganisation which is going on just now are very great indeed. Often when I myself am tempted to send out some new circular to jog the attention of the local authorities I remember the local authorities' representatives whom I have met who say, "For pity's sake don't jog the machine any more. It is already taking a full bite into this problem. Extra stimuli from the central authority do not accelerate, but in some ways actually slow up, the rapid progress which we all wish to see."
There is no golden rule to success, however. I am sure that a Debate such as we have had to-day will do a great deal to bring about the acceleration which we desire. A great many practical points have been raised and we have had many short speeches full of point. The House will realise that in putting so many points hon. Members have made it more difficult for me to be at once succinct and comprehensive in my reply. It would not be fair, however, to leave out. of account the numerous questions which have been asked to-day and yesterday. There was one in particular put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and again at the end of the Debate by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley). They referred to the provision of gas masks in certain areas of Cumberland and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney paid tribute to the fact that an enormous number of gas masks have been made and very widely distributed, and he considered it all the more strange that in certain areas of the country the distribution was still incomplete.
There are, in fact, enough gas masks for the whole population, but in the emergency of last September there was a certain number of over-issues here in London, while a certain number of gas masks which were issued were damaged by the population, who did not realise, I think, how very important it was that they should be preserved against another emergency. Therefore a reserve has had to be built up and is being built up, which will be of use here or in the more distant counties which have been mentioned. But the first necessity is to collect an adequate reserve, because it is very desirable that in the most dangerous areas a reserve should be kept, so that extra issues can be made. That is why for the time being an extra distribution has not been made in certain areas such as Cumberland, The hon. Member suggested that I take a census of the bare places. I dare say these bare places are very well known in the distant areas which will not be subject to the first shock of attack, but I cannot give the list just now. I will, if he wishes, collect the information and try to let him have it.
There were certain other questions raised yesterday and again to-day. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) put several points, and it is a striking example of the other preoccupations which face hon. Members that both the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) intimated that they would have to leave at a fairly early stage of the Debate, the hon. Member for Camberwell to attend an A.R.P. meeting, and the hon. Member for Abingdon to attend a meeting in connection with the Territorials. Every Member of this House in some way or other is preoccupied with the administration of those measures which we are discussing this afternoon as well as with the legislation which we are now putting on the Statute Book.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell asked, first of all, whether the Lord Privy Seal was the co-ordinator, whether it was to him that Members had to apply in regard to details. The answer is "Yes"; he is the Minister for Civil Defence, upon whom the responsibility lies, although we his colleagues do our best to assist him in certain aspects of the problem. With regard to expenditure, the hon. Member asks, Would there be a statutory limitation of the rate which

the local authority could expend, and the answer is "No" It may be that in certain points, such as the protection of a hospital, a specific service can be limited to a rate of one-tenth of a penny or some other very small figure. But in general there will not be a statutory limitation of A.R.P. expenditure. I shall have a word more to say on finance, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will speak at greater length on that when he is dealing with the Financial Resolution.
The hon. Member asked. When an employer is called on to provide a refuge would the local authorities have the power of inspection? They will not, of course, in factories, where the Home Office inspectors would have the power of inspection; but for commercial buildings and houses local authorities would have the right of entry and inspection in order to carry out all their duties under these Acts. He also asked whether they would have power to give a certificate for the purpose of grants. The answer is "Yes"; they must have because somebody must certify that the work has been satisfactorily done if a grant is to be payable. He asked whether the training of employés was to be carried out at the expense of the employers—that is so; and whether the local authorities would give assistance if they were consulted. The answer is "Yes"; under the Act of 1937 the local authorities are expected to give assistance in training courses of that kind. He asked also whether in the extension of buildings the local authorities would be consulted. We shall certainly see that local authorities are consulted in such matters.
The hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir C. Granville Gibson) made some points with regard to the difficulties of firms who are in financial straits in carrying out the demands made upon them for the safeguarding of their employés under the Bill, and asked whether Government-guaranteed loans or some such facilities would be given. I am afraid the answer to that is "No." The necessity for an employer to safeguard his employés under this Bill is exactly the same as the necessity of his complying with factory legislation. If an employer failed to bring his factory into a condition which would satisfy the factory inspectors, then it would be impossible for that factory to carry on its operations; and air-raid


precautions are in exactly the same category. The hon. Member complained that the contribution was too small and asked whether the operations to be carried out could rank for deduction of Income Tax. The answer is "Yes." That is not in this Bill because it is not an Inland Revenue Bill, but we have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter. It is under the régime of the Chancellor that deductions will be made and claims allowed. My hon. Friend asked whether property could be compulsorily acquired. The answer is that for public purposes it could be, but it would not be possible to allow private companies compulsorily to acquire somebody else's property for their own advantage.
My hon. Friend also asked whether there was a limitation of distance between the shelters and the works. No limitation is laid down. I do not think one can make any hard and fast rule. We can all tell whether a shelter is near enough to the works to be useful to the employés or whether it would be too far away. I should not like to lay down any definite number of yards or feet as a cast-iron criterion. He asked when the new code would be out; the Lord Privy Seal said that it would be out very soon. He asked whether it would be laid down how large per person a shelter should be in cubic feet of space; that information will be in the code. He asked also as to the obscuration of light, and whether it could be done by means of a main switch in the factory. The answer is "No," because the obscuration of light has the general purpose of obscuring the light during the whole period of the war and is not a matter of merely pulling out a switch by a wave of the arm. The purpose is to ensure that if a factory is darkened it will not be seen by aeroplanes from a distance, and can continue production unimpaired.
The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) spoke at some length upon the shelter policy and regretted that more has not been laid down in the Bill. The powers with respect to that policy are in the Act of 1937, and it is not necessary to lay down further powers in the Bill. She was complaining that administration ought to be more vigorous in this matter, and that certain decisions ought to be promulgated on it.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be speaking later on that point and I do not think the hon. Lady will expect me to deal with it any further. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and others who mentioned that considerations of passive defence should not overshadow those of active defence, and that considerations regarding the number of shelters and so on should be part of a general plan leading up to positive attack and the pushing of all these locusts of death further away from our shores. That is the other half of our problem. Preoccupation with passive defence may lead, in the long run, to a result very different from that which we desire.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of shelters I am sure that the House is anxious to hear whether the Government have an opinion in regard to deep shelters and, if so, what it is. Secondly, whether the Government have faced the fact that local authorities upon whom shelter powers are conferred have not in many cases the financial resources with which to provide deep shelters, and that it is also a matter for doubt whether local authorities have the technical, engineering and architectural ability. Those are questions about which hon. Members on all sides of the House want to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Elliot: The Lord Privy Seal will be speaking later in the Debate. The points just raised by the right hon. Gentleman are of general importance and are not such as I can fairly deal with when going over the points made during the Debate.

Dr. Haden Guest: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Lord Privy Seal will be speaking later in the Debate; when will that be? On the Financial Resolution? If so, will he not be tied down to the terms of the Resolution?

Mr. Elliot: I hope very much that none of us will draw the attention of the Chair too much to the terms of the Financial Resolution. I can only hope that none of the remarks which are made now will be overheard by the Chair in the later stages of the Debate, and I am sure that the House and the Chair will not desire to limit in any way the scope of the discussion. The Lord Privy Seal, having


exhausted his right to speak on this occasion, cannot speak again on those points in which the House is so very interested, unless he takes the opportunity of the Financial Resolution. It is on that stage of the Bill that he will speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon referred to the special responsibilities of defence areas, highly important areas which, although not themselves reception areas, should not, from their character and that of the areas adjacent to them, be used as reception areas. Certainly, in considering this we shall have to keep that point in mind. There may be islands in the reception areas in which we should do our best to avoid billeting. But this may raise a difficulty because we must keep it clearly in mind that when we are making inroads into the pool of billeting accommodation, we are at the same time increasing the number of people who must remain in the dangerous congested areas. These are conflicting claims which we can only balance up the one against the other. I fully recognise his point and we shall do our best to meet it.
An interesting review was given us by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) of the difficulties of county councils and of the highly congested borough which he represents in this House. He complained that county councils felt there was difficulty in getting decisions, but, as I say, we cannot remove that complaint by mere assertion. We can do it only by making consultation in every way as informal as possible and by speeding up, even in the passing of this Bill. In all these matters we have to remember that we are working in a state of emergency for which all of us will have to make allowances. He desired a re-scheduling of the areas on Tyneside, but, as he knows, I have undertaken to send the officer in charge of evacuation at the Ministry to hold a conference with the local authorities there on the whole subject. These things take time. This is a case in point. We have to discuss that matter with the evacuation authorities and with the reception authorities. If I could say at once that South Shields would be evacuated as well as Gateshead or Newcastle, I would do it, but these things depend on the local authorities as much as upon anyone else, and upon the pool of accommodation available.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the problem of the self-evacuating person, and of the danger that people from the great towns would absorb in advance the transport upon which we are relying to take away the children. I hope that I am able to dispel his fear that no decision has been come to on that point. He said again and again that we had done nothing to take compulsory powers for billeting. But that would be a matter for a Defence of the Realm Act. I can assure the hon. Member that no danger such as he fears would be allowed to reach unreasonable proportions. It was interesting to note that he thought we should enact a Defence of the Realm Act now. That is rather a steep order, and might not lead to the acceleration which he desires. If the Lord Privy Seal came to this House with D.O.R.A. to-day I am sure that he would not succeed in persuading the House or in (a) gaining any greater power for the local authorities or (b) in accelerating the progress of these preparations. The hon. Member spoke of the burden of rates and mentioned that rates in the West Riding of Yorkshire would have to bear an additional burden of as high as 4d.

Mr. Ede: It is 4½d

Mr. Elliot: I looked up the figures, as far as I could get hold of them, for 1938–39 and those which I have been able to obtain do not correspond with the figures given by the hon. Member. It does not go over 1.24d

Mr. Ede: I gave the figures for the current year 1939–40, in the county rate, of which notice has just been given to the various rating authorities in the county.

Mr. Elliot: Yes, I thought that was probably the difference. The figure is certainly smaller than that which he gave. As he knows, we have an undertaking by the Lord Privy Seal, and this we shall carry through. We shall have to take into account those rising figures which, in some cases, go far above what were contemplated when my right hon. Friend introduced what is now the Act of 1937. The hon. Member next spoke of the desirability of being released from restrictive covenants in respect of some movements of headquarters, some of which he was carrying out himself. As he said that he was raising this point later in an


Amendment. I think we may leave it to be discussed on that Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Patrick) said that there were certain firms who were carrying out plans for an altogether different type of shelter, and that they would need to be provided for. It is possible to increase the grant in exceptional circumstances. Judging by his description, that was a factory in which those exceptional circumstances existed. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who made a constructive and very interesting speech, complained that the motive power was not enough. He suggested a grid of some kind being coupled up to increase the voltage passing through the wires. I waited for some time to find out more about the place from which the voltage was to be derived. I saw an extra set of lamps requiring extra amperage. He suggested that the regional commissioners should be brought in, but I think he will agree that they could derive power only from the central dynamo; but I could not find any suggestion by which the central dynamo could be driven at a higher speed.

Sir A. Salter: I thought the dynamo was the right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleague on that bench. I suggested the commissioners as a grid to transmit more of the energy.

Mr. Elliot: I had hoped that when he spoke of connecting it to a grid he thought of connecting it up with a source of power, and not a source of consumption. If his view is that the Lord Privy Seal and myself should work harder, then we must just do the best we can, and if we should come to this House and ask for a modest rise of salary, no doubt we could safely leave the matter in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. He spoke of the dissatisfaction existing in regard to deep shelters; that is a point which has to be cleared up. He spoke of the Anderson shelters and was anxious to know the speed at which those shelters were being delivered. I am able to say that at present we are turning them out at a rate which is giving new shelter to 200,000 persons a week. I think that that is a very creditable figure, which shows great energy, and drive in the

original decision and the speed with which it is being pressed forward.

Sir A. Salter: Does that figure relate to delivery only, or is installation proceeding at the same rate?

Mr. Elliot: This figure represents delivery to the householders themselves. I could not quite say whether the installation is proceeding at the same rate. If a shelter is delivered into a backyard, it can be very quickly put into position to shelter the inmates of the house. The hon. Member spoke of the desirability of having many kinds of shelters. I agree with that. We shall have to deal with the shelter problem, not by any simple formula, but by a number of devices. My hon. Friend spoke, and I think the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey also spoke, of the desirability of some respite from noise and so on, particularly for people working for long periods in dangerous areas. Whether that respite can be best gained by means of deep shelters or by some form of relief in rotation, like moving troops out of the line, I should not like to say. Those of us who have been in the front line will recollect how difficult it was to get any respite from noise, even in the shelters available to us, and, therefore, from time to time it was necessary to move out of the line if you were really to get any respite, which I admit, if you are to keep up the productivity of the workers, is absolutely necessary.
As regards the problem of evacuation in difficult areas, the hon. Member said that different criteria would have to be applied in different cases, and that is true. If, for instance, the docks on the eastern side of the country were subjected to long-continued bombardment, clearly those docks could not be used. In that event, the traffic would have to be transferred to the other side of the country, and a new set of criteria would come into play. Obviously, whatever shelter you might provide for the men, there is no shelter that you could provide for the ships, and, if the bombing continued to such an extent as to wipe out, say, the dockside of London, it would be useless to attempt to carry on a great part of the nation's trade through those docks. The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. W. H. Green) spoke of the question of finance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I.


Albery) made the interesting suggestion that it might be possible for a loan to be made by the local authority for the hire-purchase of shelters. The point is an interesting one, and we shall look into it. It might be possible to do something in that direction.

Sir I. Albery: If that is being considered, is there any possibility of its being prevented by the terms of the Financial Resolution?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think it would be prevented by the Financial Resolution. It would not impose an extra charge. Such a loan would naturally be a loan for purposes of hire-purchase, not a subsidy, and I think that in those conditions it would not be out of order.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) expressed the hope that the provision with regard to burning pit-heaps would not result in that charge becoming a charge on the industry. The Bill, however, which was brought in by a number of hon. Members on his side of the House, and which has now reached the stage of Report and Third Reading, does in fact put the charge exactly there, so I think it is a little unfair to ask us to go further than the hon. Members responsible for that Bill went in their own proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) spoke of the desirability of evacuating disabled ex-service men, a very special class of those who are infirm and for whom we all have the greatest sympathy. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood), although he said that we had a wrong conception of the size of the problem, nevertheless admitted that this is a Bill to provide, not £20,000,000, but £45,000,000, because he talked about the steel shelters coming in as well. It may be that this is still an insufficient provision for our necessities, but it is at any rate a formidable and gigantic provision, and I think it may be truly said that the Government are not allowing financial factors to be the governing consideration in their attack on the problem.
I should like now to say a word about one or two general points which have been raised in the Debate, and on which I think the House would wish to hear something from me. The problems of evacua-

tion and the hospital problem were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan), by the hon. Member for Islington North (Dr. Guest), who has a special right to speak on these matters, and by a number of other hon. Members. With regard to evacuation, the hon. Member for Islington North suggested that the Government are not carrying out the recommendations of the Anderson Committee, but surely the opposite is the fact. The Committee recommended that reliance should be placed mainly on billeting in private houses, and that a plan should be prepared in complete detail for the transference of children school by school. They said:
Until a complete survey of available accommodation in the safer areas has been made, it will be impossible to determine the scale on which evacuation can be carried out without overtaxing the resources of the country. We believe that accommodation will in fact prove to be the limiting factor, in the sense that there will not be room in the relatively safe areas for all who could theoretically be spared from the vulnerable industrial areas.
We have carried out the survey which the committee recommended, and we have been brought up against the limitation which they anticipated, that is to say, the amount of accommodation available in the safer areas. The returns of the local authorities are now practically complete. They cover a population of 15.500,000 out of the total of 16,000,000 in the receiving areas, and, therefore, we know how many people can be billeted. We have taken the standard of one person per room, and if billeting is pushed above that limit, there is a danger of destroying the primary object for which billeting is carried out, that is to say, keeping up the morale of the civilian population. There may be areas in some districts in which a higher concentration will have to be endured, but for the country as a whole, over a long period of time, it may be unwise to depart from that standard if we can possibly help it.
On the basis of one person per room we have taken a very great deal of action. Each local authority has now been informed of the number of persons allotted to its area. We have worked out a timetable under which the transport authorities will provide for the evacuation of the 3,000,000 persons in these priority groups—a colossal task. The movement of the original British Expeditionary


Force to France in 14 days at the beginning of the War in 1914 was regarded as a great feat of railway organisation, but here we are attempting to move 3,000,000 persons, not in a matter of weeks, but of days. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney commented with some uneasiness on the fact that the railway companies, on going closely into the time-table, found that a three-day period instead of a two-day period would be necessary, and that, in the case of certain railways, four days might be required. Conceive what a colossal task it would be to carry out the time-table of a move of that size and running at that speed. It reflects the greatest credit on the transport authorities that they have been able to work out such a scheme. It will not be like the state of affairs that we had last September, when people were simply shovelled into trains and taken out into the country; it will be carried out according to detailed plans, whereby the children will be despatched in an orderly manner and receive accommodation ahead, prepared for them in reception areas which have been fully warned and are actively engaged in the organisation of their reception.

Sir Percy Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised as to whether his Department will be in a position to "marry" the schools in the evacuation areas to those in the reception areas, so that contact may be made between the school authorities in London and those in the country as smoothly as possible?

Mr. Elliot: Whether or not we shall be able to do that fully I should not like to say. When a train comes up, it must be filled, and the train must stop. Whether we shall always be able to transfer to a certain area the children whom we desire to billet in that area, I should not like to say. We shall do our best to inform the local authorities in the receiving areas, as and when we are able to do so, of the schools from which the children will be coming to them, but whether we shall ever get so far as to send to a school in Dorsetshire children from a certain school in London, in all the chaos and confusion of a great war and the impending atmosphere of calamity which might overhang such a move—whether we shall be able to

take a particular school in Hackney or Bethnal Green and transfer it to Dorsetshire—is impossible to say. If we could do that, we should be doing something in comparison with which the achievement of the prophet Moses would be a mere joke.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many available billeting places were revealed by the survey?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I could not give that figure off-hand, but I think it was of the order of 5,000,000. We are arranging for a movement of 3,000,000 persons, without interfering with a fourth million, namely, the 1,000,000 people who have reserved accommodation in the reception areas under private arrangements. These numbers will be subject to a certain amount of adjustment, but I think they will come out pretty nearly to what I have just said.

Dr. Guest: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the respective numbers of children and adults included in the 3,000,000?

Mr. Elliot: Speaking from memory, I think the number of children will be from 2,000,000 to 2,500,000, and the balance will be adults.

Dr. Guest: That indicates that the recommendations of the Evacuation Committee cannot, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, be carried out.

Mr. Elliot: The recommendations of the Evacuation Committee—

Dr. Guest: Apply to adults as well as children.

Mr. Elliot: But, in addition to the adults who are going with the children—mothers and teachers and helpers—there will also be the 1,000,000 persons who are making their own arrangements, and who may all be adults. But then we come to the limitation of available accommodation indicated in the report of the Committee, and we come back to their recommendations that, first of all, we must make a survey and work out our plans. Then we must use the accommodation that is available to the very best advantage. That was the fundamental demand which the Committee made upon the Government, and that demand is being carried out. It is true


that the Committee said they thought that a great city would perhaps lose as many as one-third of its inhabitants. I do not see my way at present to go much beyond a fourth.
I do not deny that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and others have spoken of much larger figures. The hon. Member for Derby, in his first speech on the Camps Bill, spoke of 5,000,000, which is not very different from the figure of 4,000,000 which I have just mentioned. In his second speech, however, he gave the figure as 10,000,000. I beg the House and the hon. Member to consider that we are moving 1,000,000 people a day. It is very unlikely that we shall have 10 days' notice of any emergency. To attempt to move 10,000,000 people would mean that we should, at the end of the evacuation period, be running into actual war conditions, and the high figures which would apply in the case of a smooth, well-organised evacuation would be disturbed, and it might be very difficult to carry out smoothly and easily the evacuation of the 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people referred to. After that, one comes to a new set of figures. When the war begins, when the communications are interfered with, when the actual services and rail-ways and roads may be broken up, a new set of figures will arise. I beg the House to consider the risks of over-planning. There is a danger in thinking you can see all the dangers ahead, and there is nothing worse than an over-rigid plan which has broken down in its early stage. What I want to concentrate on from the beginning is a smooth and easy movement of 4,000,000 people.

Mr. Lansbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking account of certain areas in the East End of London where the danger is recognised as being much more severe than anywhere else? I think the right hon. Gentleman will have heard of Hackney Wick and the lower side of Stratford, along the main sewer of London. Is there any scheme for taking all those people out, as has been recommended by the inspectors who have been sent there to investigate?

Mr. Elliot: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he might have heard me say—

Mr. Lansbury: I have been here all the time the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking.

Mr. Elliot: Then he will have heard me say that there are places where completely different criteria will apply, I am not only referring to the East End of London; it may be that on Tyneside there are areas where the dangers are quite as great. But the big mass movement is the thing on which, I think, we ought to concentrate everything in the first place. Later we can give attention to those areas of high vulnerability.

Mr. Lansbury: I am obliged for that answer. Hon. Members must remember that each of us feels a little concerned over the district he represents. That is the reason I put the question.

Dr. Guest: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for referring to this matter. It is no party matter. Does not his reply indicate the impossibility of evacuating the large number of adults originally contemplated in the report? Does it not indicate the necessity of taking other action to provide accommodation for adults in the rural areas where they would be relatively safe—action not already contemplated? In the case of intensive bombardment, the alternative to planned evacuation is not that people stay where they are, but panic evacuation. In order to avoid that we must have a plan; and if the accommodation is not sufficient, other accommodation must be provided.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member will recall what I have just mentioned to the House, that we are providing shelter accommodation at the rate of 200,000 persons a week. Accommodation will not necessarily be in the rural areas. Some of it will be in the urban areas, to deal with the problem of persons who cannot be accommodated under the billeting scheme. The phrase "bouche inutile"—the useless mouth—has been mentioned. That phrase was coined for the case of the commander of a fortress who rushed people out of the fortress, with the result that they had to eke out a miserable existence between the two forces, and most of them, if I remember rightly, perished miserably. It may be that these new concentrations will be just as vulnerable as those from which the people were evacuated.

Dr. Guest: I am not suggesting new concentrations.

Mr. Elliot: You cannot move 10,000,000 people in this country without producing new concentrations. Ten million people are in themselves a concentration. You cannot avoid the fact that if you move them anywhere you will have the ground rather more thickly covered than it was before they came there. I have undertaken to review the plan as soon as the returns from the local authorities are complete; and, of course, I shall consult with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. But this is really a mobilisation scheme, and a very great scheme, and it will be impossible to chop and change it. Therefore, we must be sure that alterations are not made except for the very gravest causes, and that they do not alter unduly the broad lines of the scheme.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that, broadly speaking, the present plans involve the use of all the available billeting accommodation, will he not once more consider whether the present provision for camps cannot be very greatly increased?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, but we have plans which it is very desirable we should get on the Statute Book. We want to be sure that that movement is not haphazard. I want to say a word about what the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and others have said about having our plans—to use the graphic phrase of the hon. Member for North Tottenham—"mucked up" by people trying to evacuate themselves. I hope that the phrase "women and children first," with which we are all familiar in times of danger, will be accepted by the people as a whole, and that people will not try to rush the transport facilities that are available. The evacuation we have contemplated will itself mean a great reduction of the train facilities available for ordinary people. The hon. Member for North Tottenham mentioned that, perhaps, there will be a strain put not merely on rail but also on road transport. We are not blind to that. If that were to happen, measures would, clearly, be taken to deal with the situation. We, as citizens, ought to realise that the mothers and children should go first. We ought to stay where we are, even at great danger to ourselves, until that movement has been carried through. That is the appeal I make to the citizens of this country, who, I believe,

will do all they can to help the Government.
I come to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wands-worth. He was anxious to know whether the beds which were mentioned were really beds—whether they really existed. The figure is 200,000 beds for immediate use, and another 100,000 in the course of a few days after an emergency develops. There is no doubt that, on the basis of using the existing hospital beds and clearing those we are able to clear, we can get 200,000 beds at once—beds which are there, which have pillows, which have bolsters, which have blankets, and which, more important than all, have nurses. Those beds are now in existence. People are sleeping in those beds to-night, and it will be possible for us to have them made available at 24 hours' notice. As for the extra 100,000 beds, we have them on order. Twenty-five thousand have been actually received and distributed to the hospitals. If we do not get all the beds which are on order we should have resort to local requisitioning, and we believe that we should be able to get the 100,000 in that way. With regard to mattresses, they are on order and are rapidly being delivered. We have 300,000 hospital blankets on order, and 62,000 of them have been distributed.
As to nurses, I agree that there is an urgent need. Eighty thousand are available, but it may be that three times that number will be required before the war is over. We have set up a central emergency committee for the nursing profession. Their task is to establish a central register of nurses and nursing auxiliaries—on the same lines as the British Medical Association's central register of doctors, and to establish and train a nursing reserve from women who are offering themselves for training. I trust that Members, when speaking, will bring the need of recruits to this service very prominently before the young women of the country. There is a local organisation in every county and county borough, under the charge of the medical officer of health, responsible for dealing with volunteers and training them. The Central Committee have already received some 4,000 applications. Of course, that is merely the beginning of the flow; but friends of mine who were interviewing applicants yesterday and to-day reported


very favourably on the calibre and capabilities of the young women coming forward. Each locality is of course receiving recruits and I have not yet received their returns. Application for enrolment should be made to the Central Committee, Romney House, Marsham Street, Westminster, S.W.I, or to the local medical officer of health, or to the St. John Ambulance Brigade, or the British Red Cross, or to the Women's Voluntary Services.
Finally, I would say as regards hospital accommodation that we have made arrangements for getting work commenced on the next stage of our programme, the programme for erecting auxiliary accommodation in the form of hutments. Of these we have made arrangements for 20,000 beds to be proceeded with forthwith. The three main areas for which these will provide will be the London area, the Birmingham area and Tyneside, and I hope very much that we shall be able to co-operate with not only the local authorities but the voluntary hospitals, in order that full use may be made in peace time of this additional reinforcement to the hospital accommodation of the country. On Tyneside, there is an appeal being made at present for extra hospital accommodation, and funds are being raised. I hope we shall be able to co-operate with those running that scheme.

Colonel Nathan: How many, in terms of patients, does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that the hospitals will be capable of accommodating?

Mr. Elliot: I have said that 200,000 beds will be available in the first 24 hours and another 100,000 a day or two later, and that we are now providing 20,000 additional beds in hutments.

Colonel Nathan: That would be a small number, having regard to possible requirements.

Mr. Elliot: I do not doubt that at all. I was speaking of the 200,000 beds that we shall have available in the first 24 hours, the extra 100,000 that we can make available, and of making a start for the further provision of beds. I do not regard the 20,000 as more than a start, but the House will realise that the construction and equipment and staffing of 20,000 hospital beds is a formidable undertaking, and I would not like to hold out hopes

to the House of getting to a further stage at an early date. That, in peace time, would take us more than three years, and we are going to try and do it in a much shorter time than that.
I apologise to the House for having taken longer than I had hoped, but the points that have been raised are of very great interest. It may well be that I have omitted to refer to all the points which have been raised, but I do not wish to trespass longer on the time of the House. The House to-day has shown a high temper, and I hope that I have done nothing in any way to bring discord into the discussions or to weaken in any way the spirit of the people. We are contemplating a grave and most unpalatable future for a great many people, but we are faced with problems which make even such a future preferable to a future we should have to contemplate if we tamely submitted to the sort of challenge with which we are being faced.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 18th April.—(Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.)

CIVIL DEFENCE [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for civil defence it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided toy Parliament of—

(i) the new grants specified in Table I below in respect of the expenses there specified, being expenses incurred either before or after the passing of the said Act,
(ii) the increases in existing grants specified in Table II below,
(iii) the expenses of Government Departments specified in Table III below, whether incurred before or after the passing of the said Act,
(iv) the compensation specified in Table IV below;

(b)the extension of the meaning of the expression "defence services" in Section one of the Defence Loans Act, 1937;
(c)the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act of the present Session by any Government Department or the Electricity Commissioners.

TABLE I.


New Grants.


Persons to whom grant made.
Expenses to which grant made.
Maximum rate of grant.


Owners or occupiers of factory premises, mines (including quarries) and commercial buildings; employers generally (including public utility undertakers).
Reasonable capital expenses, in providing or securing provision of air-raid shelter—
The standard rate of income tax for the year 1939–40.


(a)for persons living or working in or about the premises, mine or
commercial building;


(b)for employs;


(c)in the case of dock or harbour undertakers, for employs and
other persons likely to be found in the dock or harbour area.


Public utility undertakers (except railway and electricity undertakers).
Approved expenses on measures designed to secure the due functioning of the undertaking in the event of hostile attack.
Fifty per cent. or in the case of measures by dock or harbour undertakers for providing services not required from the undertaking apart from hostile attack or danger thereof, eighty-five per cent.


Railway undertakers.
Approved expenses on measures as respects—
One hundred per cent.



(a) the execution of works or the provision of accommodation, plant, materials or equipment (including stocks of stores) with a view to providing or maintaining essential railway services in the event of hostile attack; and




(b) the provision for persons employed by them on duties in connection with essential railway services of special protection or equipment to enable those services to be maintained during air raids.



The Central Electricity Board.
(1) Approved expenses on measures designed to secure the due functioning of their undertaking in the event of hostile attack.
Fifty per cent.



(2) Payments to other electricity undertakers of those undertakers' approved expenses in taking measures for securing the due functioning of their respective undertakings in the event of hostile attack.




(3) Approved expenses in acquiring, storing, insuring and maintaining stocks of plant and equipment (including wires and cables) with a view to those stocks being made available for temporary use by the Board or other electricity undertakers in the event of damage consequent upon hostile attack; in making arrangements for the distribution in that event of any such plant and equipment; and in acquiring land, acquiring, insuring, storing and maintaining other property, and doing anything, necessary or expedient for any of those purposes.



Dock or harbour undertakers.
Approved expenses on measures designed to provide facilities in the event of hostile attack for the collection of casualties occurring in the dock or harbour or on adjacent land, and the treatment of those casualties in first-aid posts.
Fifty per cent.


Occupiers of factory premises, owners of mines (including quarries) and public utility undertakers.
Approved expenses on measures for eliminating or screening flames or glare, or for rendering premises less readily recognisable by aircraft.
Fifty per cent.

Persons to whom grant made.
Expenses to which grant made.
Maximum rate of grant.


County and county borough councils and councils of large burghs.
Approved expenses in rendering premises suitable for a hospital for the treatment of casualties occurring in Great Britain from hostile attack or for the purpose of protecting persons in hospitals from injury in the event of hostile attack (including the council's share of approved expenses so incurred by any combination of councils of which it is a member).
The higher of the two following rates, that is to say, seventy per cent. or the excess over one-tenth of the produce of a rate—




(a) in England of 1d. in the pound;




(b) in Scotland of four-fifths of 1d. in the pound.


Local authorities.
Approved expenses incurred—
One hundred per cent.



(a) in collecting and furnishing to His Majesty's Government information useful for the preparation of their plans for transferring the civil population in the event of war or the imminence of war, and accommodating and maintaining persons transferred,




(b) in taking in advance measures for any such transference, accommodation or maintenance,




(c) in providing for the storage and preservation of material and equipment, and




(d) in taking part in carrying out any such plan.



Local authorities.
Approved expenses in carrying out measures mentioned in schemes for securing the availability of special supplies of water for extinguishing fires caused by hostile attack.
Ninety per cent.

Table II.

Increases in existing grants.

1.reases in the grants under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, ascribable to an increase of two pounds in each annual contribution payable under Section one of that Act in respect of any flat provided in blocks of flats within the meaning of that Act in which air-raid shelter is provided.

2.creases in the grants under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938, ascribable to the substitution, in relation to houses provided in tenements within the meaning of that Act in which air-raid shelter is provided, in Sub-section (2) of Section one, of the sums of twelve pounds thirteen shillings, thirteen pounds eighteen shillings, and fifteen pounds three shillings for the sums of ten pounds ten shillings, eleven pounds fifteen shillings and thirteen pounds, respectively.

3.Increases in grants under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, ascribable to a provision that expenses of a local authority in making an underground parking place pro vided by them suitable for use as an air-raid shelter can be treated as expenditure ranking for grant under that Act.

Table III.

Expenses of Government Departments.

1. Expenses for the purpose of arrangements in carrying out agreements—


(a) to secure that in the event of war facilities will be available for the treatment in hospital of casualties occurring in Great Britain from hostile attack;
(b) for the training in advance in nursing of persons who express their willingness to offer their services in the event of war; and
(c) for the provision of a bacteriological service for controlling the spread of infectious disease in the event of war.

2. Expenses in or in connection with the acquisition or storage of equipment and other material with a view to the accommodation and maintenance of members of the civil population transferred from one area to another in the event of war or the imminence of war.

3. Expenses in or in connection with the acquisition and holding, or the making of arrangements for the acquisition and holding, and the storage, preservation and transport of stocks of plant and materials for the repair of roads, bridges and buildings damaged by hostile attack.

4. Administrative expenses, including expenses incurred in performing any functions transferred from a defaulting local authority.

Table IV.

Compensation.

1. Such compensation to such persons as may be determined by Parliament after the


passing of the said Act of the present Session, being compensation payable where possession of any property is taken by any Government Department under the said Act of the present Session.

2. Compensation to, or to the dependants of, persons injured in peace time (at whatever date) in the course of being trained or exercised, or of training or exercising others, in respect of air-raid precautions, of being trained in nursing in pursuance of arrangements under the said Act of the present Session, or of acting in a voluntary capacity on behalf of a local authority in the exercise of the functions conferred or imposed on the local authority by or under the said Act of the present Session or the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

8.3 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I move this Resolution on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a long one, but I am afraid that that is inevitable, because the Bill to which it refers is of considerable length, and the financial provisions it contemplates are not only very considerable in extent and scope, but they are also very various in character. If it had been possible to devise some simple all-embracing financial formula under which these various grants could have been compressed the Resolution might have been a shorter one, but they concern very different people and contingencies and it is necessary that we should adopt in each case the appropriate form. I hope that if the Resolution is a long one, it has in fact been drafted in a way which makes for clarity and for the convenience of the Committee.
May I call attention to the first paragraph, which contains the operative words of the Resolution as a whole. It proposes approval by this Committee of the financial Clauses of the Bill and sets out the scope and character of the financial provisions which it is desired to make. The Committee will observe that this is done under three heads, marked (a), (b) and (c). The first one (a), is the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and this is further subdivided under four sub-heads, and they are new grants, increases in existing grants, the expenses of Government Departments, and compensation. The other two main heads are the extension of the meaning of the expression "defence services" and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received. I will

dispose of the less important parts of the Resolution first and then come on to the more important ones. The purpose of paragraph (b) is to extend the meaning of the expression "defence services" which is contained in the Defence Loans Act so as to enable the appropriate services under this Bill to be met out of loan or borrowed money if that is required. The third sub-head (c)—the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the Act—may seem a very remote contingency to the Committee, but, if remote, it is necessary to provide for it. Such sums might occur, for example, from the disposal of surplus property acquired by authorities for the purpose of carrying out this Bill, or—although I hope we shall not—we may have some expenses to recover from defaulting authorities.
I hope that the Committee will consider that I have disposed of (b) and (c), and I will now turn to (a), payments out of money provided by Parliament. This is obviously the most important head of the Resolution. Each of the four subheads has a table attached which gives in more particularity the arrangements which it is desired to make of a financial character. It will be seen that (ii), (iii) and (iv), omitting (i) for the moment, are more or less self-explanatory, and perhaps the Committee will be content with a comparatively brief description of what is intended. Number (ii), Increases in existing grants, specified in Table II, arises in the first place from Clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill. Clause 24, the Committee will recollect, gives power to make regulations for the construction, alteration or extension of buildings erected after the regulations are made, so that during that process they may incorporate the structural features which are designed to give protection against air raids.
Clause 25 is consequential to it and provides for an increase in the subsidies payable by the State to local authorities in the case of blocks of flats, in which air-raid shelter is provided, either in compliance with the regulations I have just mentioned, or with the approval of the Minister of Health or of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The reason for providing for Ministerial approval to make the subsidy payable is that it will enable the subsidy to be paid in cases where the local authority is providing shelters in advance of the regulations. The cost of


this to the Exchequer is estimated at £120,000 a year for 40 years, and the cost to rates at about £60,000 a year.

Mr. Logan: It says "provided in blocks of flats." Supposing they were to make provision outside the blocks of flats, would that count for grant?

Mr. Morrison: That is a question which will be settled by regulation, and I suggest to the hop. Member that that is a point which may well be raised in Committee.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The right hon. Gentleman says that this can be raised in Committee, but when one looks at Table II of the Money Resolution, it appears very doubtful whether it could be raised in Committee, because in Table II, at the bottom of page 1986, there is a specific reference to blocks of flats in England, and tenements in Scotland.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether that affects the proposition that I was making, because the Resolution enables this additional subsidy to be paid.

Mr. Foot: In respect of blocks of flats?

Mr. Morrison: Blocks of flats in England or tenements in Scotland. The word "tenements" is merely used as the Scotch equivalent of blocks of flats in England.

Mr. Foot: It is an important point. When the term "blocks of flats" is specifically used in the Bill and in the Money Resolution, it will not be in order for anybody to move the substitution, for example, of some other classes of building in the Bill.

Mr. Morrison: That is so. The Resolution and the Bill merely authorise this subsidy to be paid in respect of new buildings. That is perfectly clear, but the point put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) was of a different character. He was concerned with the use of the words "in blocks of flats," and that it might prevent the subsidy being payable when there was some shelter provided which might not be said to be inside the block of flats.

Mr. Logan: As this reads, "in blocks of flats," we would have to take it as meaning within the flats. My interpretation of it would be that a building in the

square within the area of the block of flats should come within the provisions of the Financial Resolution. I want to bring in tenement dwellings so that they shall receive the benefit of the Act.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will not lose sight of the general provision to which it is related. It is linked up with Clause 24 of the Bill, which empowers regulations to be made providing that for the future houses must conform in their structure to certain rules which make them incorporate in their structure shelters which will be of value in case of air raids. This follows on Clause 25, and is intended to provide that, where in blocks of flats different problems of shelter arise, when local authorities building these flats incorporate in them structural shelters, they will be entitled to the higher subsidy.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: It not only applies to new buildings, but where there are alterations as well.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. As I said, in the case of a block of flats where these alterations had been made even in advance of regulations being published so that it could not be said that they were built under the regulations, if approved by the Minister of Health they will be eligible under this Resolution for the increased subsidy which it is desired to make available. I mentioned the cost of £120,000 a year for 40 years to the Exchequer, and £60,000 to the rates.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea how that estimate is arrived at? On the face of it, it seems impossible to know how the Treasury or anyone else could arrive at such an estimate. Who knows what the future programme of building will be, and, on the top of that, how many buildings the local authorities may deem it necessary to cause to be altered? It would be very interesting to the Committee to have some idea.

Mr. Morrison: Obviously, an estimate of this character must be of an uncertain nature, but we are not so devoid of data as my hon. Friend might suggest. The position in regard to these blocks of flats is fairly well known, and it is possible to make some estimate. The estimate may not be right, but it is the best estimate I can give. A further matter provided for under this sub-head is the adaptation of


underground parking places so that they may be used as air-raid shelters. Clause 7 makes it clear that the grant to be provided is based upon that expenditure which is solely attributable to rendering the parking places fit for this purpose.
Sub-head (a) (iii) of the first paragraph makes provision for meeting the expenses of Government Departments. These are specified in greater detail in Table III. I will give an example of the sort of expenditure by Government Departments for which it is desired to provide. Clauses 41 and 44 enable the Minister of Health to take wide steps in regard to the organisation of services to deal with casualties and outbreaks of infectious disease in the event of war. Power is given the Minister to continue the work of accumulating great quantities of mattresses and other equipment necessary for the purposes of evacuation. By this Clause and the Financial Resolution this expenditure may be met whether it has been incurred before or after the passing of the Act. Other sorts of expenditure authorised are mentioned in Clauses 50 and 51, under which there can be accumulated stores of material for the repair of roads, bridges, buildings, and so on.

Mr. Dunn: Trenches?

Mr. Morrison: I think that trenches are covered by the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937. This particular provision relates to the expenses of Government Departments, and I have mentioned how they may be incurred by arrangements for evacuation, the accumulation of materials necessary for the repair of roads, bridges and so on. Sub-head (iv) refers us to Table IV and deals with the question of compensation. This matter has been dealt with in debate and all that I ask the Committee to do at this stage is to approve that part of the Resolution which will authorise payment for this purpose.
I have dealt with all the Resolution except the first sub-head of (a) in the first paragraph. This represents the region in which the heaviest expenditure from public funds is to be anticipated. It deals with the new grants authorised by the Bill. The grants authorised are in addition to those previously authorised by the other Act. These new grants are

many and varied. They can be made to three different sets of persons: to owners and occupiers of industrial or commercial property, to public utility undertakings of various sorts, and to local authorities. These are the recipients of the new grants.
I will deal first with the new grants to local authorities. These are of three kinds. There are, first, grants under Part VII of the Bill in respect of the construction of casualty accommodation in hospitals, and so on. Secondly, there are grants under Part VIII, which authorises the provision of special measures for extra water supplies for fire fighting where necessary. There are also grants under Part VIII to provide for the cost of preparing schemes of evacuation. The first of these, grants for hospital accommodation, referred to in Clause 44, represent 70 per cent. of the expenditure, provided that the liability left to the authority does not exceed in one year the produce of one-tenth of a penny rate in England and another fraction to meet conditions in Scotland. This arrangement has been agreed in discussions between the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health in Scotland, on the one hand, and representatives of the associations of local authorities and the London County Council on the other. It is a retrospective grant, so that expenditure already incurred under this head will be met.

Mr. Dunn: With regard to the retrospective provision, am I to take it from the statement now made that when expenditure exceeding a penny rate has been incurred under the previous Act, the proposed provision will reimburse the local authorities who have exceeded that amount? I mention this because of the position in the West Riding, where the amounts represents a 4½d. rate. May I take it that where the amount in the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire has been exceeded by 3½d., the West Riding will be able to recoup themselves?

Mr. Morrison: Not being perfectly familiar with conditions in the West Riding and with the circumstances in which that expenditure was incurred, I should not like to give a definite answer to that question without inquiry.

Mr. Dunn: May we have an answer before the end of the Debate?

Mr. Morrison: I hope so. This particular provision is solely for the purpose mentioned in the Resolution, and it represents 70 per cent. of the expenditure under this head. It provides that the liability of the authority does not exceed the produce of one-tenth of a penny rate. This deals with hospital accommodation and makes it clear- in regard to expenditure for that purpose under this Bill that the grant will be subject to the limitation on the local authority of a burden of not more than one-tenth of a penny rate. In regard to what the hon. Member's local authority have done under the previous Act, I will inquire and let him know as soon as I can.

Mr. Dunn: It will be appreciated that if this point could be cleared up, it might shorten the Debate.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is difficult for me, without a knowledge of the full circumstances under which the local authority incurred this expenditure, to give him an answer on a matter of such importance. The second of these grants are those designed to provide, where necessary, emergency water supplies for fire-fighting purposes. Under the 1937 Act provision is made for grants payable for any measures which are taken to utilise local and static water supplies for this purpose. It is felt that in certain centres of population, where there is a high risk of conflaguration, work of a permanent nature should be undertaken to make this service thoroughly efficient. Some of this permanent work involves heavy expenditure, which could not be regarded as coming within the normal provisions of the 1937 Act, and, therefore, it is felt by the Government that with these considerations in mind an exceptionally high rate of grant is justified. It may be as high as 90 per cent. subject to the condition that the works are put in hand by the end of September.

Sir R. Tasker: In the event of a high explosive bomb smashing the main, where is the supplementary water supply to come from?

Mr. Morrison: That is precisely the sort of problem with which this new expenditure is intended to deal. Works may be undertaken to make use of other supplies of water and that will involve heavy expenditure in construction. Where it is

felt that something other than the normal water supply should be available this special grant, which may be as high as 90 per cent., will be available.

Sir R. Tasker: The position in London is this. You may have a certain reservoir serving certain districts, and if one of the mains is broken where are you going to get a supplementary supply?

Mr. Morrison: There are other methods of dealing with a situation of that sort which have been worked out with the London County Council and the Department concerned with these precautions. There is the river; and water can be stored and used for fire-fighting purposes. All I am asking the Committee to do at this stage is to agree that the Government are right in proposing a grant as high as this for expensive works which may have to be undertaken in order to secure an adequate water supply in time of emergency. The technical details as to how this is to be done have been discussed at considerable length.

Mr. Lansbury: There is no provision here for sewerage. Suppose the mains are smashed what provision is there here for that?

Mr. Morrison: Apart from the general power to acquire materials for repair to roads there is nothing in the Bill dealing with that point. The matter was discussed on the 1937 Act and the appropriate measures have been taken by local authorities under that Act.

Mr. Lansbury: I am interested in two things; the evacuation of children and the evacuation of people. Ever since this thing started I have been asking questions on the point. There is nothing in the Bill, so far as I can see, dealing with the situation, if it should arise.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it left to a local authority to take the initiative in the provision of works for this special fire precaution, or is it to be done by the central authority?

Mr. Morrison: Local authorities already have powers and it is for them to initiate schemes. Some of these special measures have been discussed between the Department and the local authorities, but there is nothing in the Financial Resolution


which specifically touches the point except the matter of materials which, of course, is an important aspect of defence against air attack which has not been overlooked. Grants in aid of arrangements for evacuation under Clause 47 are not grants in the usual sense because they are a 100 per cent. recoupment of the expenses of local authorities in this respect whether they are in an evacuation area or in a reception area. This provision is also made retrospective to the beginning of the 1937 Act.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I should like to ask a question on Clause 47 (b), and I must say that I think the Committee would like some idea of what this means. Paragraph, (b) of this Clause says:
To take in advance measures designed to facilitate any such transference or secure the accommodation or maintenance of persons so transferred.
I can perfectly well understand a 100 per cent, recoupment for anything done after war has occurred or at a time when it is so imminent that special measures are necessary. But here we have the words "to take in advance" It seems to me a very wide power to give a local authority to take measures in advance, and I should like to know what sort of measures the Treasury have in view?

Mr. Morrison: I was proposing to deal with that point. With regard to hospital work which will be met by a grant, the cost to the Exchequer is estimated for 1939 to be £1,500,000. With regard to the special water schemes, in connection with which there will be grants up to 90 per cent., the cost to the Exchequer is estimated to be about £1,000,000. The expense of the preparatory work in regard to evacuation is expected to be very small indeed, and in fact, it is not possible to give a figure that would be of any value, because the preliminary arrangements for billeting, house-to-house canvassing, and so on, have been largely the work of volunteers who have not received any remuneration. Consequently, under that head there is not any expense of a substantial character, beyond a few clerical expenses, to be anticipated.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Am I to understand that this Sub-section is intended merely to refer to this canvassing which has been so excellently carried out? It

is clear that the wording of the Subsection is very much wider than that. I do not propose to pursue the matter now, but the wording is such that it gives the local authority all sorts of powers long before there is any imminence of war. Although it is not my right hon. Friend's business to reply on this point now, I was waiting to hear what he had to say, as the amount of money required might give us some idea as to what is intended under this Sub-section.

Mr. Morrison: Any complaints regarding the wording of the Clause can be deferred to the Committee stage, but the expenditure with which I was dealing was in connection with work done in advance of an emergency, in peace-time, in order to ensure that the evacuation, if it becomes necessary, shall proceed with the utmost rapidity. As regards other expenses incurred by the Government in these preparations, the acquisition of material, such as beds and bedding, is covered by Table IV of the Resolution. I am not dealing with that now. I have given the Committee the best estimate I could of what will be the cost to the Exchequer of hospital works and special water schemes. The Committee may be interested to know what it is anticipated will be the cost to the local authorities on the rates. First of all, with regard to hospital works, on the assumption that the one-tenth of a penny rate is operative, the cost to the rates is expected to be about £125,000.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does this apply to Scotland and England?

Mr. Morrison: I think it applies to both countries. With regard to fire-fighting appliances, for which there is a Government grant up to 90 per cent., the cost to the rates is expected to be in the neighbourhood of £120,000. It will be appreciated that these figures do not include anything for the expenses of local authorities in connection with the erection of steel shelters, as these expenses automatically attract appropriate grants under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. Those grants run from 60 per cent, to 75 per cent. roughly, with a higher percentage grant in cases where compliance with that service involves expenditure exceeding a 1d. rate. I would mention that the bulk of the expenditure under this Bill is of a capital character, and therefore, in appro-


priate cases, loans for meeting it may be sanctioned by the Ministry of Health. Grants to public utility undertakings are dealt with in Clauses 27 to 33, which are summarised very accurately in paragraph 11 of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum. They were fully dealt with last night by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and they are set out in clear detail in the Table appended to the Resolution. It is estimated that the cost to the Exchequer will be about £9,000,000. I come now to the next new grant, that provided in Clause 17, towards the reasonable capital cost of air-raid shelters of an approved type for workpeople. This also was described in some detail by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and the only points to which I invite attention are the following. It will be seen from Table 1 of the Resolution to whom these grants are made payable; the recipients are described as:
owners or occupiers of factory premises, mines (including quarries) and commercial buildings; employers generally (including public utility undertakers)
Another point to which I invite attention is that these grants will apply to shelters provided both before and after the passing of the Act, subject to the condition that they are provided by the end of September next, or thereabouts. The Committee will see that there is a reference to "reasonable capital expenses," and hon. Members may wonder what is to be considered reasonable. I understand that regulations will be made on this matter describing what is to be considered reasonable for the purpose of grants.

Mr. Foots: Will the regulations be laid before the House?

Mr. Morrison: I think so. This is referred to in a Clause in the Bill, but in any case the hon. Member can raise the point on the Committee stage. I know he raises it because it is a tradition that the House should exercise a vigilant control over the acts of the bureaucracy.

Mr. Foot: I can raise the point, I suppose, with the usual result?

Mr. Morrison: We shall see. Another point concerning these grants to which I should like to refer is that they will be payable not only in cases where the provision of the shelters is made obligatory—that is to say, where more than 50

people are employed—but where the shelters are provided by any establishment which is a factory, mine or commercial building within the definition of the Bill and which is situated in one of the areas in connection with which grants are made payable, irrespective of the number of workpeople employed. That is an important point. Yesterday, I heard one hon. Member rather suggest that nothing was done for the smaller establishments employing fewer than 50 people. Clause 17 of the Bill deals with this matter in some detail, and the relevant passage is contained in Sub-section (2) of that Clause. As regards the cost to the Exchequer, this will be about £8,000,000, most of it falling to be met in the year 1939–40.

Mr. David Adams: May I inquire as to what is the meaning of the provision in Sub-section (2)? There is reference to:
a grant equal to the appropriate proportion of so much of those expenses as the Minister considers reasonable
The Minister might consider anything from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent., or even 100 per cent., to be reasonable. Are the persons concerned to be left entirely at the mercy of the Minister?

Mr. Morrisons: I do not think the hon. Member need be under any apprehension. If he looks at Sub-section (3) of the Clause he will find the words:
The expression the appropriate proportion means an amount in the pound equal to the standard rate of Income Tax for the year 1939–40
If he goes on to Sub-section (4) he will find there the conditions under which this grant is payable, that is to say that the shelter has been provided before the end of September, 1939, or that work on the shelter is in progress and that the Minister is satisfied that it will be provided within a reasonable time thereafter. It is also provided:
No expenses shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be reasonable in so far as they exceed such standard as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister made with the consent of the Treasury.
That, I think, is the point to which I referred previously. There will be a standard of what is reasonable and what is not, and that will be taken as a criterion by the Departments concerned in administering this part of the Act.

Mr. Adams: Is not this a very cumbersome way of explaining that the amount is to be equal to the standard amount of Income Tax? What is the necessity for putting in such words as:
equal to the appropriate proportion of so much of those expenses as the Minister considers reasonable
Those words we are told simply mean an amount equal to the standard amount of Income Tax.

Mr. Morrison: They mean that, combined with expenditure which conforms to the standard prescribed by the regulations in the later part of the Clause. Whether the expression is cumbersome or not is a matter of opinion. If it is cumbersome, I hope that, in Committee, the hon. Member will suggest words which will convey the same meaning in a clearer and more understandable form.

Mr. Adams: That should be easily done.

Mr. Morrison: The last grant to which I refer is that for eliminating or screening flames or glare, for camouflage, and for similar purposes. It is a 50 per cent. grant and the cost to the Exchequer is estimated at about £2,000,000.
To summarise the Exchequer liability to which I am asking the Committee to agree, I would say that the total amount is about £25,375,000, plus an annual burden for 40 years, estimated at £120,000. The bulk of this £25,000,000 will fall to be met in the current financial year. This is in addition to the commitments already entered into by the Exchequer under the Air-Raid Precautions Act of 1937. I cannot, off-hand, remember the total figure of Government expenditure under that Act, but I think I am not far wrong in saying that it is between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 at a conservative estimate, because I recollect that it includes £20,000,000 for shelters and that it provides for the supply of equipment, some of it of a very expensive character, such as additional fire engines, fire-fighting appliances, respirators and so on. In order to get a true picture of what we are asking the Committee to agree to to-night, we must take into consideration the sums to which we have already committed the Exchequer. It is a very heavy cost, but when the Committee considers the objects which we have in view in incurring it, I

do not think they will withhold their assent to the Resolution.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before I deal with the details of the financial proposals now before the Committee, I feel that I must join with those who have expressed objection to the short time which has been available between the introduction of the Bill, the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, and the present discussion on the Financial Resolution. So short an interval has militated very considerably against informed criticism. It is not only a question of the difficulty which hon. Members have had in appreciating the details of these proposals, but the impossibility of local authorities and others rendering to Members their criticisms, on which we here, are bound, in large measure, to rely. I do not think the Lord Privy Seal denies that he has had to break his promise to the Scottish authorities in this matter. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman defends himself on the ground that his hands have been forced by the march of events, but, personally, I cannot agree to letting him get away with that defence. In my judgment, the events of March, 1938, and, still more, those of the autumn of 1938, ought to have warned Ministers to take very much earlier action than they did actually take. But Ministers have been lulled into a false sense of security by such slogans as "Peace in our time," and those of us who have attempted to rouse Ministers and the country to the urgent need of getting forward with these measures, have had hurled at us such abusive epithets as "jitterbugs."
Now that we are in another crisis, of course we cannot, in any part of the House, seek to hold up the Second Reading of the Bill—which has indeed already gone through—or this Financial Resolution. But we are sorry that this Resolution could not have been published much earlier so as to give adequate time for that informed criticism and proper discussion which alone can enable this Bill to be the Measure which it ought to be when it leaves Parliament. I understand that the Lord Privy Seal intends shortly after Easter to see the Scottish authorities who have been particularly upset by the limitation in time. I know, having been in contact with them, that they are very apprehensive about the effect of these financial proposals upon them and very


desirous of seeing considerable changes made with regard to these matters. The Lord Privy Seal is probably aware that at the annual Convention of Royal Burghs, a drastic resolution on those lines was passed. Of course, he realises that after Easter is after the passage of this Financial Resolution, which fixes certain things in a way that prevents—

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what resolution the Convention of Royal Burghs passed?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I was informed this afternoon that the Convention of Royal Burghs yesterday passed a resolution demanding 100 per cent. payment by the Exchequer for these services, and stating that, as far as they could see at such short notice, this Bill places upon them very serious burdens indeed. I was proceeding, when the Lord Privy Seal, quite properly, intervened to point out that when we have passed this Financial Resolution to-night, if we do pass it, we shall have, so far as that is concerned, committed ourselves to its terms, and any Amendment of the Bill which does not conform to the Resolution will, of course, be out of order.
I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will see that, in view of the short time that has elapsed—whether he is to blame or whether anyone is to blame is another matter—it has resulted in there having been no adequate discussion prior to the passage of the Resolution. Nobody can deny that. Therefore, I ask him to give an undertaking that he will not close his mind to bringing in an amending Financial Resolution, if circumstances seem to render that desirable. The right hon. Gentleman is meeting the Scottish local authorities and others, and it may be that arguments will be brought forward that will influence his mind in the matter, and I hope that the mere fact that by that time this Resolution will have been accepted by the House will not prevent him from judging the matter on its merits and, if necessary, amending these proposals by introducing another Financial Resolution.
What are the actual facts? We have a very long and complicated Financial Resolution, lucidly explained by the Chancellor of the Duchy, relating to a

highly complicated and detailed Bill. I have done my best to study it, and I have listened to speeches made about it, but certainly I cannot say, with my hand upon my heart, that I understand all the provisions of the Bill and of the Financial Resolution and that I know exactly what is the appropriate grant for each service performed by the authority; and I am sure I am not alone in the Committee in that. Even if I were alone in the Committee as I see it around me now, I should not be alone among Members of the Committee who are absent. I think the Minister of Health was a little kind and optimistic when he explained that the reason why the Chamber was so depleted was that all those hon. Members who were not here were themselves at the moment actively engaged in promoting air-raid precaution services.
The real fact is that this whole question of civil defence is a new aspect of war. The required protection of the civilian population in the last few hundred years has been comparatively small, and now for the first time again we are approaching the conditions of the ancient world, in which the civil population were in very great danger in war time; and it is a fact that this situation is one that ought to be faced more seriously than it is being faced by the Government. I think there can be little doubt that this matter ought to be treated as a national matter and made a national charge. We on these benches, at any rate, do not accept the view that this is a local service like drainage, or police, or even education, or housing, for which the prime responsibility rests on the local authorities. In most of those other matters the local authorities really have an option. They can carry out their scheme of police or drainage on a fairly lavish scale, or they can contract it to minimum dimensions, but in this case that is not so. In this case the local authorities are really acting as the agents of the Government to perform a national service, which they are constrained to perform and in regard to which they have an exceedingly narrow limit of deviation. For that reason alone it seems to me that this idea, that in order to secure efficient administration the local authorities must bear a considerable part of the cost, cannot be accepted.
But there is another ground which I think is even stronger. This expenditure


will be very much higher in certain localities than in others, not because of the volition of the local authorities, but because of their geographical position. May I give two or three illustrations? First of all, there are the ports, with their harbours and docks, which will make them specially vulnerable; there are areas which, for some reason or another, owing perhaps to the presence within them of munition works or something of that kind, are specially liable to attack; and there are large centres of population which, apart from military reasons, may attract the malignant attentions of enemy aircraft. Therefore, I suggest that the idea of putting a certain proportion of the expenditure on the rates is not sound. It enables the people residing in districts which are favoured to have it both ways. Not only are they more favourably placed and less liable to be injured in life and property, but they will also escape that part of the burden which the Government, by this Financial Resolution, are putting on the rates of the localities which are less favoured.
There is another aspect which the Government do not perhaps altogether take into account. Even without these proportional charges on the local authorities, these authorities are in any case bearing what one might call some of the overhead charges connected with these services. In such matters, for instance, as fire services, police, health, and education, the administrative expenses connected with many of the services envisaged will in any case fall upon them without attracting any grant whatever. It seems to us that this proposal is vicious in that respect. If the local authorities are to be compelled to pay, we say at least let their contributions have an upper limit. I repeat that it is not at their volition that they can expand or reduce the amount of their services. They are confined and restricted within very narrow upper and lower limits. The high proportion in the pound which their rates will reach will depend on circumstances over which they have exceedingly little control, in spite of the careful figures which the estimates of the Treasury—I should rather say the conjectural guesses of the Treasury—are able to give us.
Therefore, the burdens which will fall upon the local authorities are quite un-

certain. As an illustration of that, it will be remembered that it was forecast that the burden imposed by the 1937 Act would not exceed one penny in the £, but already it has been mentioned that in some areas they have risen to several pence in the £. I am told that at Glasgow the administrative side alone of the expenses under the 1937 Act amount to nearly £30,000 a year, and are constantly expanding; and a penny rate produces £48,000. The financial proposals of this Bill will conform, I think, in some respects to the principles of the 1937 Act. In the Schedule to that Act it was arranged that in certain circumstances the maximum grant would be earned by the local authorities, and one of the complaints that is made by those with whom I come into contact is that, owing to the sectionalising of the services for the purposes of calculating grants, they are prevented from getting on the global total the higher rate which they would otherwise earn. There is another point which ought to be taken into account. Many of the local authorities have public utility services and, in addition to the expenditure thrust on them in other ways, they will have to meet the cost which falls on public utilities.
I come to the financial provisions under Clause 7, about which the local authorities make two points. As I understand it, the contribution from the Exchequer is, in those cases, somewhere between 60 and 75 per cent., and there is a feeling among the local authorities that in view of the large amount of additional expenses those figures ought to be revised. Further than that, they say that as this proposal is worded it will thrust upon them an undue burden. They recognise that if they provide a place for parking it is a matter which should not rank for grant, but they say that the cost which ought to attract grant should be the whole cost of the undertaking less that part of it which is designed for the purpose of parking. I see that the Minister is puckering his brows in regard to that but I believe in practice that it would make a considerable difference if it were worded in that way. Clause 22 is concerned with the fixing of appliances, and I cannot see why a local authority should be put to any expense in connection with fixing appliances to private premises when the Government have supplied the thing which is to be fixed. As. it is a contract between the


Government and the private individual, surely that expenditure ought to attract the full 100 per cent. grant. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be prepared to consider these and other matters and, if necessary, to set them right. If it is impossible to do so by an Amendment to the Financial Resolution, let us have another Financial Resolution in an amended form.
I want to emphasise the need for action. The Lord Privy Seal came to us as a man with a great reputation and we want to see the fruits of it in the work that he does. Six months have gone by since the last crisis and it may be, as the Minister of Health told us, that certain things have been got forward, but undoubtedly a large number of other matters have not progressed nearly as much as the country has a right to expect. This belated Bill itself is an illustration, and it is in itself only a promise of action in future. Let me take one illustration which I put to the Lord Privy Seal only a few days ago. Take the question of the trenches.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): We are now discussing the Money Resolution. This is not the Second Reading of the Bill, and I cannot find trenches mentioned in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think we find the question of shelters very definitely in the Money Resolution. In paragraph 3 of Table II we find the words:
Increases in the grants under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, ascribable to a provision that expenses of a local authority in making an underground parking place ….
Surely the completion of trenches comes within the limit of the Financial Resolution.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Money Resolution refers to underground parking places, but I cannot find that trenches are mentioned in it.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not want to pursue the point at any length if you say that I am out of order, but perhaps you will let me say that we do not want the authorities to be as long over the provision of shelters in parking places as we have reason to think they have been in dealing with proposals which came under

the Act of 1937. In spite of what has been said to-day I cannot: help thinking there has been a great deal of unnecessary delay and procrastination in the past, and I believe that the condition of our civil defence at the present time is lamentably insufficient. I would not say that if I thought that the exposure of what is wrong to-day would give comfort to any enemy. On the contrary, I believe it is going to help, because not only is exposure the first step towards redress but I believe that, in so far as our defence services are deficient, the deficiencies are already well known to possible enemies. If any enemy attacking us kills or wounds more of our civil population than he would do if our defences were in a better state of preparation, I do not think that will help that enemy to win the war. I do not believe he is going to demoralise our people, who are a splendid people, with dogged courage and resolute will, but it will be a shame and a disgrace to our Government, to whose care the preservation of the lives and homes of our citizens and their children has been entrusted.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I should like to join not only in the closing words of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) but also in the protest he made against this Money Resolution being taken to-night. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Lord Privy Seal pointed out that he was having to carry it through in a hurry, and if it were necessary to take this Resolution to-night in order to save time and to get the Bill on to the Statute Book at an earlier date than otherwise would be possible, I do not think any of us would complain; but it is clear that it makes no difference to the date when the Bill reaches the Statute Book whether we take the Money Resolution to-night or not. We rise to-morrow for the Easter Adjournment. The Committee stage, therefore, cannot be reached until after we return, and I should have thought it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to arrange to take the Money Resolution on the first day after our return. That would make no difference to the rapidity of the Bill's progress, but would make a good deal of difference to the discussions which the right hon. Gentleman is to have with the local autho-


rities. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said:
Local authorities have been told that opportunity for further consultation will be afforded to them before the Committee stage is reached"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939; col. 2640, Vol. 345.]
As the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh has pointed out, what difference will that make? Already the decision of the House will have been taken on the matters which are of particular concern to the local authorities. Not only will the hands of the House be tied, but the hands of the right hon. Gentleman will be tied, unless he is prepared to take the course, which has already been suggested to him, of either bringing in an amending Money Resolution, if that be possible or substituting for it some other Resolution. Ae has been pointed out, this is a long and complicated Resolution. It is almost as difficult to understand as the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. Let me quote one sentence from the Memorandum on which I have thought some misconstruction might be put.
It also provides that the local authority shall, if the occupier consents, affix such appliances as are being provided free of charge to certain classes of persons to strengthen basements
That seems to be open to a good deal of misunderstanding, and I cannot help thinking that the same persons who drafted that Memorandum must have had a hand in framing the Money Resolution. We ought not to let the Money Resolution pass in this form without some comment, even though we are considering emergency legislation. The House can seldom have seen a Money Resolution occupying so much space upon the Order Paper and drafted in so much detail. The right hon. Gentleman will already have realised that no one in any part of the House is anxious to obstruct in any way the progress of the Bill. The complaint made from all sides is that the Bill has come too late, and in days like these no one is disposed to subject such a Measure to anything in the nature of a microscopical examination on the Committee stage; but that is no reason why the hands of the House should be tied in advance by a Money Resolution of this character.
I should like to give one or two examples of where, it seems to me, this Money Resolution goes into quite unneces-

sary detail. Table I deals with remissions of Income Tax where air-raid shelters are erected. Why could not that have been put perfectly generally? Why has it been necessary to set out three classes of persons who may get this particular remission of taxation? One can imagine, though it may not be likely to arise, other classes of persons who might erect air-raid shelters, and the House might wish to deal with them in the Bill, but by the Money Resolution we shall be tied down to these three particular classes. In the column dealing with grants to local authorities we find that those to whom the grant is going to be made are:
County and county borough councils and councils of large burghs
Again it is conceivable, I do not say it is likely, that the House might wish that those grants should be open to other local authorities, to the small burghs in Scotland or to district councils in England, yet we are prevented from proposing that by the form of this Money Resolution.
I pass on to Table III, dealing with the expenses of Government Departments. In paragraph (1, a) it says:
Expenses for the purpose of arrangements: or in carrying out agreements—
(a)to secure that in the event of war facilities will be available for the treatment in hospital of casualties occurring in Great Britain from hostile attack
No doubt that is the purpose which is in the mind of the Government, but is it necessary to put it in so much detail in the Resolution? Is it necessary to have the words "in hospital," or even to have the words "occurring in Great Britain," because it is conceivable that provision might be made for dealing with casualties occurring outside the actual frontiers of this country—casualties, for instance, which might even occur on the high seas? Those may be very remote contingencies, but they are contingencies which conceivably the House might wish to deal with on the Committee stage. Hon. Members will be prevented from moving any Amendment on these matters because of the entirely unnecessary particularity with which this Money Resolution has been drafted.
Then I come to Table IV. Paragraph 2 of that refers, I take it, to Clause 56 of the Bill—and just let me say in passing that, although in this part of the Committee we approve most of the outlines of


this Bill, we shall have some criticisms to make of Clause 56. But in that paragraph the wording is:
''Compensation to, or to the dependants of, persons injured in peace time … in the course of being trained or exercised
Is it proposed that these arrangements for compensation shall come to an end immediately on the outbreak of war? If so, it will be necessary for the Government at once to make fresh arrangements on the outbreak of war for some entirely different form of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I take it that that is the intention of the Government. But then again, is it necessary to have the words ''in peace time''? These are words of limitation in the Money Resolution. All these things may be right or they may be wrong, but they ought not to be dealt with here and so tie the hands of the House. That is the protest that I wish to make.
The House will recall the report of the Select Committee on Money Resolutions. After that committee had reported we were told by the Prime Minister that we might expect a change in the future because he had sent out a circular to all the Departments telling them to draft these Resolutions with as little detail as possible. There could never have been any circular sent out by the Prime Minister in the whole of our Parliamentary history which has produced so little effect. These Resolutions go on being drafted and being presented to this House in precisely the same way as before the report of the Select Committee and before the sending out of that particular circular. These are attempts, and we can only suppose that they are quite deliberate attempts, to fetter the freedom of this House to move Amendments on the Committee and Report stages. I know it is true that we cannot raise these objections with quite the force that we can at other times because this is emergency legislation, but the fact that we are passing through an emergency, that we have to do these things quickly, is no reason why we should allow the Departments to get away with anything that they choose.
When the Select Committee on Money Resolutions produced their report they suggested that in Bills of this kind, the primary purpose of which is not the expenditure of money, the Money Resolution should in the normal course be taken after the Second Reading, in order that

Ministers and those who advise them might have the opportunity of hearing what this House had to say on the Second Reading and draft their Money Resolution accordingly. I cannot imagine any Bill where that procedure would be more appropriate than it is on this Bill. But the whole force of that recommendation is lost if Money Resolutions of this sort are to be printed at the same time as the Bill and to appear on the Order Paper at the same time, so that what is said on the Second Reading has no effect on the minds of the Government because they have already made up their minds, irrespective of this House, as to the form the Money Resolution should take. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will find it possible to accede to the appeal that has been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman who sat down a few moments ago.
I am not going into the general issues that are here raised, because they have been dealt with very thoroughly on the Second Reading, except to say this. There have been a number of speeches made on all sides of the House on the question of deep shelters, and of course that is one of the matters particularly dealt with in this Money Resolution. I am not making any complaint at all. It was referred to in the speech we had from the Minister of Health, but it would be welcomed in this part of the House, and I think in all parts of the House, if the right hon. Gentleman who will wind up the Debate on this Money Resolution could give us rather more information about the intentions of the Government on that particular matter.

9.30 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I feel bound to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in regard to the very narrow drafting of the Financial Resolution. It is really very difficult to speak on some matters which would have been perfectly relevant otherwise, in view of the fact that the Money Resolution excludes a whole series of Amendments which would normally be discussed, and probably in ordinary circumstances would be accepted in Committee. Apart from that, I heard with a certain anxiety the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that money was not the primary or governing factor in the mind of the Government when dealing with this question. Finance is as


vital a part of our national defences as anything else; and whether the money is spent by Governments, or by a commercial firm, or by the individual, it is money spent, and it is our resources dissipated unless it is spent wisely and well. War is a game which, like football, is best played so far as possible in the enemy's 25, and not in our own; and, speaking as an ex-soldier and one who has always in this House referred to the armed Forces of the Crown as the Fighting Forces, and not as the Defence Forces, I feel that we ought to do everything in our power to maintain the offensive outlook, to emphasise as little as possible the purely defensive aspect, to carry the war, if war there be, into the enemy's country, and to emphasise as little as we may the necessities under which we obviously labour of making our homes as safe as may be from the hurricanes and earthquakes which may assail them.
That being the case, I venture to hope that the Lord Privy Seal, in exercising his powers under Clause 9 of Part III of the Bill, will limit as narrowly as possible the areas in which he proposes to erect shelters, and in which he proposes to give instructions under Part I to owners and occupiers of factory premises. Reasonable capital expenses up to the standard rate of Income Tax will take up, even as it is, a very large sum, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be drawn by any agitation into extending, in the first instance at least, the area in which this Bill will operate beyond the absolute necessities of the case. Otherwise there will be a shortage of labour, there may be a shortage of material, and there will certainly be waste of money.
The Financial Resolution in its reference to fire-fighting at several points seems to indicate that all that we have for fighting power is a reserve of water, but, as I understand it, we are really in greater need of a large reserve of chemical fire-extinguishers, which in many local areas will be of great value and far more portable than reserves of water. I have no doubt the Lord Privy Seal has it in his mind that these chemical fire-fighting apparatuses and the actual raw material will be available. They can be easily-stored, but they cannot be made with

great rapidity. They take time to make. They are mostly by-products of other materials, and I hope that some future Money Resolution at least will contain some reference to the storage of fire-fighting materials in every thickly populated area. Chemical apparatus can be of the greatest assistance. Thanks to the National Fire Brigades Association, we now have in this country a vast accumulation of expert knowledge on this question of chemical extinguishers, and I should be very sorry to think that that knowledge was being wasted because we had not the material at our disposal.
I shall now turn straight on to Table IV, which deals with compensation. I must confess to being rather puzzled about it. It may be from ignorance and it may be that there is some other enactment with which I am not familiar, but, as the Bill stands, no compensation is available to any third parties who may be injured as a consequence of people being exercised or trained, or who are training or exercising others, in respect of air-raid precautions. It is quite possible that third parties may be seriously injured, but there will be no scheme for them. A lorry or a truck may be driven for purposes of testing and training someone in air-raid precautions work, and it may run down a cyclist or injure a child. So far as I can see there is no provision in the Bill, or in the Money Resolution, by which compensation will be available to such third parties.

Mr. Foot: They would be very much more fortunately placed than the people who would come under the Bill. People who do come under the Bill are being deprived in Clause 56 of their legal rights and are being given some entirely unspecified form of compensation.

Sir A. Wilson: I am speaking in support of the local authorities. I should not like to see them mulct in damages for third-party claims which might be much more serious than the burden which the Government are assuming in respect of probably trifling injuries to the persons themselves while being trained or while training others.
I do not much like the exceeding vagueness of this scheme which, under Clause 56 of the Bill, may be laid down by the Treasury I take it that Table IV


of the Money Resolution covers Clause 56 (2) of the Bill, which says:
A scheme made by the Treasury may provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to or to the dependants of persons who suffer injuries to which this Section applies of such periodical or lump sums as may be specified in the scheme.
Sub-section (1) of Clause 56 says:
This Section applies to personal injuries sustained in the course—
(a) of being trained. …
For 23 years the Workmen's Compensation Act has contained the words:
arising out of and in the course of,
but here we have only:
in the course of,
which greatly limits the matter, as I understand it. I should like a very full examination of this point by someone versed in workmen's compensation in order to see whether the words of the Bill, reproduced in substance in the Financial Resolution, are as wide as the Government intend. The country is accustomed to that phrase in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but the words now proposed would exclude anybody who was run down on his way back from being trained after and during a blackout. They would exclude a man riding on his bicycle to his job by the shortest route in order to undergo air-raid training. All these cases are decided cases under workmen's compensation and they are thoroughly understood. I suggest that it is far preferable in a Bill of this kind to use the precise words of an existing Act of Parliament, however defective it may be, but on which there is a vast mass of decided cases, in order that there might be no differential treatment of injuries under this Bill as compared with injuries under the parallel Workmen's Compensation Act.
Moreover, the Treasury take the very remarkable power to settle what compensation, if any, shall be given to injured persons and their dependants, without the matter being laid before Parliament. Power has been given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 31, to the Treasury in relation to workmen in the employment of Government, and 135,000 persons are under a scheme of that sort as employés of Government, but the Bill does not cover the employés of Government. Is it right to give the Treasury this immense power without this House

retaining control, at least to the extent of the proposal being placed before the House? I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that he might table between now and the Committee stage of the Bill the proposed Treasury scheme, or give an undertaking that it will be discussed in this House in some form or other, because it covers a very large number of difficult cases. The legal fraternity on both sides in this Committee would certainly be in a position to assist the Government in making a practical scheme such as that which all the Government Departments have in relation to their workers, but I hope not less liberal.
Another point arising out of the same Clause is that the scheme to be made by the Treasury may provide for the payment of moneys, but the payment is apparently not to be retrospective. Here again we are so narrowly hampered by the terms of the Financial Resolution that I am in a difficulty. The Financial Resolution says:
being trained in nursing in pursuance of arrangements under the said Act of the present Session, or of acting in a voluntary capacity
Again,
under the said Act of the present Session or the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937
I should have said that that would unduly limit the retrospective operation of the Clause. There again, is it necessary to draft these things so closely? I notice that in Table III powers are taken for casualties in hospital. In the last Great War and in most countries a very large number of casualties, after the first immediate treatment in hospital, were taken out of the hospitals and put into places which were certainly not hospitals—unless they were technically described as such. Surely those words "in hospital" should be removed. Why not in cottage homes? Or in poor law institutions or in places fitted for convalescence which are not hospitals?
Again, there are the words:
provision of a bacteriological service for controlling the spread of infectious disease in the event of war
Very good, but why limit this matter to a bacteriological service? Anybody who has had any association with attempting to prevent the spread of infection in time of war knows that, quite apart from your doctors, you need a very substantial number of policemen and a whole organi-


sation which cannot, by any form of sophistry, be included within the limits of a bacteriological service. I do not want to be unduly critical or to waste the time of the Committee, but we have all had experience of these things and I think the Government may find themselves seriously hampered by the extreme narrowness with which they have drawn this Financial Resolution.
For the rest, the point on which I should like some information is, while the central electricity authorities are very fully covered, why is there no reference to gas companies? Are they dealt with as public utility authorities? The actual danger which may arise from an explosion of gas is probably greater than in the case of electricity, and the eventual cost of dealing with gas mains and of the appropriate protection of gasometers, which are normally sited in the very centre of the most crowded areas of this country, is far greater than in the case of electricity, for the electricity companies have mostly set up their establishments during the past 20 years, and have been far more careful to avoid as far as possible being too close to inhabited areas. I congratulate the Government on having got an extraordinarily complicated Measure into such a form, and I can assure them that there will be no reluctance on the part of the local authorities with whom I am concerned in complying with the Bill. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend will find that he has hampered himself by the narrowness of the Money Resolution, and that, if he can widen it slightly at various points, he will find it much easier to deal with the local authorities, and possibly with the Committee upstairs.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: In dealing with this Financial Resolution, I am reminded of a statement made in the earlier Debate that the Minister was not going to be kicked or stampeded, but the Resolution itself, restricted as it is, shows how far the Government have been kicked from the original position when the previous Bill was discussed. At that time the Minister responsible had no conception of what civil defence meant. Anyone who cares to read the reports of that Debate will understand that that is so. I should like to say a word about the remarks of the

hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). At the conclusion of his speech he was emphatic on the importance of protecting gasometers, but at the beginning he was concerned that too much money should not be spent on the defence of the people. If a gasometer is destroyed, it will cause destruction over a very wide area, and the hon. Member may be in that area. That is why he is so concerned about gasometers.

Sir A. Wilson: It is exceedingly unlikely that a gasometer will explode. It will burn, but there is in a gasometer no greater inherent danger so far as regards spreading destruction if it should be set alight than there is in any other body of inflammable matter.

Mr. Gallacher: There can be an explosion, and a very wide range of fire. When a bomb falls on a gasometer, there is an explosion—

Sir A. Wilson: No.

Mr. Gallacher: The bomb explodes, and the fire is spread all over the area.

Sir. A. Wilson: No.

Mr. Gallacher: It seems to me that the only reason for the hon. Member's contradictory attitude of economy as regards the defence of the people and great care that gasometers should be guarded, is that he is quite out of touch with the people, but he sees the gasometer, and realises the danger the gasometer represents to himself. I am very seriously concerned and perturbed, as others are, about the narrowness of this Resolution. It is a very serious defect. The first part deals with owners or occupiers of factories and so on, and the categories which have to be covered. I would have liked, in the Committee stage of the Bill, to unite all this defence under one authority—not to have factory owners responsible, as they are here, for particular services, and local authorities responsible, as they are, for other services. I would have liked to see an Amendment put forward to bring all the services, whether steel shelters, deep shelters or shelters at factories, under one authority. That is the way to get the maximum organisation and the maximum result. I am positive that under the present Bill, while money will be spent, it will not be spent to the best advantage, and the best results as regards shelters and the defence of the masses of the people will not be obtained.
Under the Bill as I read it, following this Money Resolution, consideration is to be given to public utility companies—the big purveyors of gas, electricity, water and so on—on account of the necessity for taking care of the undertakings and for the repair of damage that may be done as a result of attack by hostile forces. I am concerned about something which can easily arise in an emergency, and for which provision ought to be made in the Bill and in the Money Resolution. So far as I can gather from the Bill, a certain percentage grant to these public utility companies is visualised where there is danger of damage from attack, but one thing about which we should be clear, both in the Bill and in the Money Resolution, is the very great amount of sabotage that will be carried on, quite apart from attacks that may come from outside the country.

Sir R. Tasker: By whom?

Mr. Gallacher: By the Fifth Column in this country, the Gestapo has its headquarters in London, as every Member of this House knows, and it has its contacts outside and inside this House. I will give the names of a few if it is desired.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Gallacher: A very considerable amount of sabotage will be carried on, but no concern appears to be shown for that, and there is no provision for it in the Money Resolution. Let hon. Members realise what has happened in other countries, and consider what is going to happen in this country if the emergency should arise and if the country should be plunged into war. I want to observe the Ruling of the Chair, but I wish hon. Members would read the literature of the Communist movement, from which they would see that the one thing in which that movement does not believe is sabotage or terrorism.
With regard to the elimination and screening of flames in factories, mines (including quarries) and public utility undertakings, there is a matter that I should like the Minister of Health to consider. I should like to see an Amendment put down that would go further than the Money Resolution allows. I have drawn attention before to a burning bing at Blairhall, in my constituency. It is

one of the most far-flung illuminations to be found anywhere in this country, and it is very near the Forth Bridge. This Clause would have to be put into operation immediately to deal with this glare, which shows the actual location of the Forth Bridge and the important railway communications to the north of Scotland. The Minister will have to take note that this 50 per cent. allowed for dealing with glare may encourage the company to eliminate the glare, but, in doing that, they can produce a situation which will cause the utmost annoyance and danger to health for the community. There is another bing at Buckhaven which is not illuminated, and the smell of that is nauseating if there is the slightest breeze. If you get in Blairhall a half-hearted attempt to deal with this burning bing the result can be very bad for the neighbouring villages. The very fact that it is burning means that there are fewer fumes coming to the villages round about, but the attempt to blanket it will cause a plague of fumes. And it should be remembered that when people are on rations, as they would be in an emergency, they are more susceptible to illness and disease. Something should be done about this Money Resolution in order to allow an Amendment being put down when the Bill comes before Committee, in order that these matters might be dealt with.
I want to refer to a matter connected with hospitals. The provision made here is not going to help us to get the necessary nurses to care for all the injured that there will be throughout the country. I have a letter from a matron of a Scottish hospital, who has held such a position for about 25 years. She protests about the treatment of nurses in Scotland, and tells me that there is very bad feeling on the part of a large number of nurses about that treatment. I would like the Minister to consider loosening the terms of the Resolution in such a way that on the Committee stage of the Bill it will be possible for us to move Amendments, to improve the situation so far as nurses are concerned and to allow us to develop, with the greatest rapidity, a large enough nursing staff to cope with the situation that will certainly arise in an emergency.

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member has made his point, because I cannot let him go on any further on those lines.

Mr. Gallacher: I have made my point, Sir Dennis. That is all I wanted to do. The restrictive character of this Resolution is going to prevent those who have been associated with this work moving the necessary Amendments on the Committee stage to provide for adequate defence of the civil population along the lines we desire. No matter how much we may spend, the actual true defence of the people is to prevent war from coming upon them, and the way to do that is to get rid of the Government, and get a Government that will make peace throughout Europe.

Sir J. Anderson: Sir J. Anderson rose—

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. Does the Lord Privy Seal intend to wind up the Debate now? Because there are other complaints to be made.

The Chairman: What may be the intentions of any hon. or right hon. Member I do not know, but, so far as I am aware, no Member on the Government Front Bench or anywhere else has any power to put an end to this Debate, unless by the recognised procedure of Closure.

10.1 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: A great many points have been raised, some of considerable importance, and it will take me a very long time to deal at all adequately with those points. That, and not any desire to cut the Debate short prematurely, is my reason for getting up at this stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and certain other speakers have joined the speakers who, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, protested against the proposal that this Financial Resolution should be taken now. I cannot help thinking that the protest has been somewhat overdone. Although, as I said yesterday, I had hoped that a longer period would have been allowed between the introduction of this Bill and the taking of the Second Reading Debate, I expressed yesterday my regret that circumstances have conspired to cut the period rather short.
But it would be altogether wrong if hon. Members were to proceed under the impression that there has been no consultation in regard to the matters dealt with in this Bill. There has, in fact, been a great deal of consultation. If we look

at the charges which are imposed by the Financial Resolution, under the different heads in the Tables, as regards the contribution towards expenses incurred by owners and occupiers of factory premises and commercial buildings, the matter was discussed, before the Bill was introduced, with the representative organisations concerned, including the Council of the Trades Union Congress. Similarly, in regard to the part of the Bill dealing with public utility undertakings, there had been, before the Bill was finally framed, most extensive and prolonged discussions with representatives of the interests concerned, and even when we come to local authorities—and it was on behalf of local authorities, I understand, that the protest against taking the Resolution, as it is thought, too soon, was mainly put forward—it is not quite accurate to suggest that there has been no sort of consultation at all.
Scottish local authorities have, I think, been foremost in voicing the protests that we have heard in the course of this Debate and the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I myself took occasion, when I had a conference with the representatives of Scottish local authorities in Edinburgh on 6th March, to outline the general provisions of the Bill. I did it, it is true, in very general terms, but I did indicate to the representatives of the local authorities what they might expect to find in the Bill, and there then ensued a very considerable amount of discussion, in the course of which the representatives of the authorities—of all types of authority in Scotland—expressed their view as to the financial burden which the requirements of Civil Defence seemed likely to place on the local authorities. I expressed in the course of that discussion my view as the responsible Minister, and as far as that goes the authorities could not really have been taken by surprise.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Was it not at that interview that the right hon. Gentleman gave a definite promise that, after the Bill was introduced, there would be an opportunity for further consultation before the Financial Resolution was taken in this House?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, before the Second Reading. It was the Second Reading that was in question. I do not think that


I actually made a promise. I have looked at the notes, and I undoubtedly discussed the matter on that occasion in the genuine belief that there would be further consultation, and I make no secret at all of the fact that the local authorities have reason perhaps to be disappointed, as I am, that it has not been possible to allow a longer time. I do not think that there is really much in it. At that time we were all proceeding in the expectation that longer time would be the rule. I was not thinking—and I wish to make that clear—of the major matters of principle, but of the innumerable details which are of interest to the local authorities. The point I am trying to make is that, so far as the major interest of principles is concerned, there was that consultation.
I come to the authorities of England and Wales. I had a similar discussion with representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who put forward their views, and I put forward mine. I offered the County Councils Association a similar consultation, but they said they would rather have the consultation after Second Reading. On Monday of this week certain representatives of the Scottish local authorities came to London, and, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I had an opportunity of seeing them, and I listened, of course, to what they had to say. I asked those representatives whether there was any special point that was troubling them which they wanted to be able to consider further before the Resolution was taken, and they were very frank. They said that there was no special point, but that they would have liked to have had a longer time for consideration in case there should be some points that they wanted to raise. I understood that these representatives recognised the force of the circumstances which had impelled the Government to press so early for the Debate on the Financial Resolution.
Yesterday, I received a telegram, which no doubt other hon. Members have had, from the Royal Convention of Scottish Burghs making it clear that the point which they were concerned to raise related to the general question of the charge upon local authorities for Civil Defence. They apparently wished to put forward the demand that His Majesty's Government

should bear the whole cost of Civil Defence measures. That certainly is not a matter the discussion of which has been in any way prejudiced by taking the Financial Resolution now. It is not a matter that has first come into the mind of anyone on seeing this Bill or the Financial Resolution. It has been brought up from time to time. It has been to some extent already debated in this House, and I do not think that either on this side or on the other side of the House the fact that the Resolution is being taken now should in any way hamper the free expression of any views that may be held on that point.

Mr. Ammon: But it will not be possible to move Amendments that will increase the charge?

Sir J. Anderson: Equally you could not move Amendments if the Financial Resolution was taken after Easter. In point of fact this Financial Resolution is not really concerned with that subject at all. It is concerned with charges which arise for the first time under this Civil Defence Bill. The demand of the Scottish Burghs concerns the charge that falls upon local authorities under the Act which is already on the Statute Book—the Act of 1937—and while it is certainly open to hon. Members to debate the question whether that Act should be allowed to continue in operation or whether in that particular respect it should be drastically amended, it is not at all clear why that question should arise on this Bill or on this Financial Resolution. As far as the Bill goes, the charges that are being put upon local authorities are quite insignificant in comparison with the charges that are being borne by the Exchequer, and the charges that are being borne by the Exchequer will, to a substantial extent, go to relieve local authorities of charges that would fall upon them under the normal operation of the Act of 1937. I made that point in the course of my speech on the Second Reading, and I do not want to labour the point further now.

Mr. Dunn: I do not quite understand the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the County Councils Association. I gather that consultations have taken place with the Scottish local authorities, and with the Association of Municipal Corporations of this country, but that no particular consultation has taken place


between himself and the County Councils Association. I gather that the answer of the County Councils Association was that they did not desire consultation until after the Second Reading of the Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the County Councils Association understood that the Financial Resolution was to be taken at this stage? Secondly, I cannot understand how the County Councils Association could really be satisfied with this Resolution, inasmuch as the county councils of England and Wales have definitely been sold a pup by the Air-Raid Precautions Act. In my own county—I want the Lord Privy Seal to reply to this—the actual cost of air-raid precautions is 4½d., and not 1d. as understood at that particular time.

Sir J. Anderson: When I had had the discussion with the Scottish local authorities and the Association of Municipal Corporations on the main provisions of the Bill, in the course of meetings which had been arranged primarily for other purposes, I thought that it was only fair to let the County Councils' Association know of such consultation, and to invite them to send representatives to meet me. That is how I came to approach them, and their reply was that they would prefer consultation after the Bill had been read a Second time, and before the Committee stage. I think that what weighed with them was that they looked at this Bill, as I suggest it ought to be looked at, as a Bill—

Mr. Dunn: Did they know of this Financial Resolution?

Sir J. Anderson: To the best of my belief, yes. At any rate, they made no point about it. It was before the Committee stage that they wanted consultation, that is, before the details came on. I imagine that they looked at this Resolution, as it ought to be looked at, as something quite apart from the provisions of the Act of 1937. If one looks at the Resolution one sees that, as far as the local authorities are concerned, most of the matters dealt with in the Resolution are matters that have already been discussed in detail with the representatives of the local authorities, and they, in fact, represent agreement arrived at. It applies,

for example, to the rate of contribution to be provided under the Clause dealing with fire precautions; it applies to the contributions provided in connection with the organisation of casualty services; it supplies an addition to the housing subsidy in the case of flats in which shelter provision has to be incorporated—all these matters have been discussed—and also the position of public utility authorities. I conjecture that it was for these reasons that the County Councils' Association preferred to have a discussion at the later stage.
On the same point, it has been suggested that there was really no reason why the Debate on the Financial Resolution should not have been postponed until possibly an early date after the Easter Recess. That suggestion was made by the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). If the Debate were to be postponed, that meant that important matters of principle were to be left at large. Unless that was to be the effect of postponement there was no logical justification for it. It must have meant that important matters of principle were to be left over for a time.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that important matters of principle are affected by a Financial Resolution? It has never been suggested.

Sir J. Anderson: In that case I have some difficulty in understanding why importance is attached to the postponement of the Debate on the Money Resolution if it is taken for granted that the Resolution must go through in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Foot: That is precisely the point. If the Money Resolution is taken after the Easter Recess—and we shall not get to the Committee stage of the Bill until after the Recess—the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet local authorities, and particularly the Scottish local authorities and would be able to redraft the Money Resolution if he thought fit. As it is, if the Money Resolution now goes through in its present form his hands will be tied.

Sir J. Anderson: Put in another form that is the point I was trying to make. The effect of postponement would be to leave open for a period the possibility of


Amendments in the terms of the Money Resolution and, therefore, the scope of Amendments which might be moved. In the view of the Government, circumstances being what they are to-day, it is of great importance that no time should be lost in getting through the various stages of this Bill. Important duties are being placed on employers under the Bill, duties which have to be discharged by a certain date, and an early date, and the Government desire to be in a position to proceed with the arrangements necessary for giving scope to the provisions of the Bill in anticipation of the remaining stages. It really comes to this, that the demand of local authorities which has led to the suggestion from various hon. Members that the Debate should be postponed is, in effect, a demand not related directly to the particular provisions of the Bill but a demand that the financial structure of the Act of 1937 should be radically altered. That, surely, is clearly the position. That is a matter outside the scope of the Bill, and it is certainly quite outside the scope and intention of His Majesty's Government in promoting the Bill. In the view of the Government it would be a profound mistake, from the point of view of the effective completion and speedy completion of arrangements for civil defence organisation, that local authorities should be relieved of all financial responsibility. The view which the Government take, and which was taken on the Act of 1937, is that civil defence is a matter in which the local authorities as representing the people of their localities have a vital interest.
The effectiveness of the arrangements for Civil Defence in a particular locality is a matter of immediate concern to the people of that locality. It is a matter in which the local authority should be in a position to bring their views effectively to bear, and if the local authority are to have an effective responsibility in the matter of Civil Defence, it is, in the view of the Government, essential that their responsibility should include some degree of financial responsibility. Otherwise, in the view of the Government, the local authorities would either be reduced to the position of mere agents carrying out, no doubt loyally and as effectively as they could, the decisions of the central Government, or they would retain their position of independent responsibility, but instead of being partners with the Gov-

ernment in the discharge of the public responsibility for Civil Defence, they would come into the position of being active critics, which would not, I suggest, further the effective organisation of Civil Defence. That, in brief, is the view of His Majesty's Government on the suggestion that has been made; but, as I said yesterday, the Act of 1937 recognised that it might be necessary to review the financial position within the principle embodied in the Act, that there should be a sharing of the financial burden between the central Government and the local authorities. I do not think I need repeat to-day what I said yesterday with regard to that review.
I pass from that rather general question to certain other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh. He suggested that undue burdens were being put on the local authorities in respect of matters covered by this Financial Resolution. As he was speaking, I was in considerable doubt as to what burdens he had in mind, because for the most part, the matters covered by this Resolution, so far as they do not involve expenditure to be borne by the central Exchequer, relate to matters which have been the subject of general negotiation and general agreement with the local authorities. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, in particular, the responsibility put on local authorities in connection with the affixing of appliances for the purpose of making basements suitable as air-raid shelters. If so, I can only say that I dealt with that point in the course of the Debate yesterday.
The responsibilities which are being placed, for the first time, by this Bill, on local authorities in that connection, and in the discharge of which they will be able to claim the full grant under the 1937 Act, go in reduction and in mitigation of the general responsibilities of local authorities under the 1937 Act. It seems to be frequently overlooked that, so far as the 1937 Act goes—and it is still in force and still governs the matters with which it deals—the responsibility for providing shelters for the public is primarily a responsibility laid upon the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman thought that for fixing appliances there should be a 100 per cent. grant. On that I would only repeat what I have already said


about the general principle which, under the Act of 1937, determines the sharing of cost between the local authorities and the central Government. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference—I am not sure that it was wholly in order—to the case of the unfinished trenches and said he hoped there would be no repetition of that experience. I think I should be allowed to say that, as far as the trenches are concerned, the responsibility for delay does not rest primarily upon the central Government. The local authorities were given, in November last, full authority to proceed and a very complete code which they could follow in planning the completion of the trenches.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is it not the case that the instructions given in November were subject to further specifications which were not, in fact, sent until the middle of January?

Sir J. Anderson: I think some questions were raised in regard to the specifications and outside opinion was obtained and a certain modification was made, but the local authorities were told that if they proceeded in accordance with the specifications that were put before them they would not need to make specific reference to the Department and they could count on receiving grant as a matter of course. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the conclusion of his speech, referred to what he described as the lamentable deficiency in our civil defence preparations and said it would be a shame and a disgrace if, on account of any deficiency in our civil defence preparations, more casualties should be inflicted on the civil population in the event of war than need be. I can assure the Committee that no one can be more conscious of the responsibilities that rest upon all the Members of His Majesty's Government who are concerned in any way with Civil Defence than I am. It is a very grave responsibility for anyone to bear and the knowledge, shared in all quarters of the Committee, that our preparations cannot be completed for some considerable time to come, weighs very heavily, as I have said, on all of us who have any share in that responsibility. But we are applying ourselves, with all the energy that we can put into it, to the task of making these preparations complete. I certainly have no

intention of sparing any effort that I can make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) suggested in the earlier Debate that the motive power behind the new instrument which is being forged in this Bill would need to be increased. We shall do all we can to increase the vigour and energy with which these preparations are being pursued. But the matter does not rest solely with the central Government. We must look to local authorities to apply themselves with the necessary vigour to their preparations. [Hon. Members: "They are doing so."] I do not say that by way of complaint. Very often, when there is a hitch or when there are delays, and complaint is made of the central Government, sometimes the blame should be laid on other shoulders. [An Hon. Member: "Waiting for guidance"] It is not a question of waiting for guidance. When we find, in many parts of the country, local authorities that have been able to get along quite well, that have brought their preparations well up to date, and that have no complaint to make of the treatment they have received at the hands of the central authority, we are justified in concluding that, in the case of other local authorities which are not getting on so well, there may at least be some contributory causes to be found in the particular locality for any delay or defect that may have occurred. I am stating my view with studied moderation, because I do not think any good purpose is served by anything in the nature of recrimination. I prefer to believe that there is very generally a realisation of the position in which we are and a desire to collaborate with the Government in bringing the preparations to a state of completion as rapidly as possible.
The next subject with which I should like to deal—and I am afraid I must do it at some little length—concerns shelter policy. The junior Member for Dundee referred to that matter, and it formed the subject of a considerable portion of the speeches of a number of hon. Members on the Second Reading. It was suggested that His Majesty's Government had not formulated any comprehensive shelter policy, and that there had been a policy of drift in the vital matter of the provision of shelters. I must remind the Committee that as long ago as 21st December His Majesty's Government formulated a


comprehensive policy of shelter provision, a policy which was to be carried out in various parts. One part concerned the provision of steel shelters, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave some figures with regard to the delivery of those steel shelters which, I think, go far to disprove any suggestion of delay, or dilatoriness, or lack of energy, in securing a rapid distribution of those shelters. Up to the present time no fewer than 279,435 shelters have been distributed, representing shelter provision for very nearly 1,500,000 people, and we hope that in a very short time the output of those shelters will be doubled so that it may reach a figure of 80,000 shelters a week.

The Chairman: I am afraid I must ask the right hon. Gentleman in discussing policy to be very careful to keep strictly to policy regarding matters within the bounds of the Motion.

Sir J. Anderson: I am much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for the way in which you have expressed your Ruling, but as the Bill does touch the question of shelters, and the Resolution at two points certainly concerns shelter policy, I felt that I was perhaps entitled to put the matter to the Committee fairly comprehensively.

The Chairman: That is the reason I put my warning in the way I did. I am aware that the Resolution does deal with certain questions relative to shelters, but I wanted to warn the right hon. Gentleman that a discussion on broad principles of shelter policy as a whole is not in order.

Mr. Poole: On a point of Order. Earlier in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill we were assured we should have a full statement.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not raising a point of Order. What he or any hon. Member may have assumed or may have said in regard to the conduct of the Chair at a future stage of this legislation has no effect upon me or the performance by me of my duty.

Mr. Logan: I am not disputing your authority, but may I ask your guidance in view of the fact that we were told yesterday, in regard to statements that were made in the Debate, that this matter would be referred to to-night.

The Chairman: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member guidance on what is going to happen. I can only deal with matters as they arise.

Mr. Logan: Suppose it did arise through some observation of mine, how could it be dealt with?

The Chairman: If I said it could not be dealt with in this Debate the hon. Member would have to accept my decision.

Mr. Lansbury: Some of us think that provision should be made for certain things which are not covered by the Bill. Are we not entitled to say they ought to be covered by the Bill and that this Resolution ought to provide money for them?

The Chairman: No, I think not. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised my point by referring to what is or is not in the Bill. What I am Ruling is that we must not have a Second Reading Debate on the Bill now. We are now debating the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not legitimate for hon. Members to argue that the amount covered by the Money Resolution is insufficient for what they regard as the purpose of the Bill?

The Chairman: Certainly it is, but the Committee, I think, will allow me to say that I must decide what I regard as in Order, or relevant, or irrelevant as the Debate proceeds.

Sir J. Anderson: I am glad to think that I have the sympathy of hon. Members opposite in my desire to give as full a statement as I can with propriety on this subject. I have pointed out that a comprehensive policy was announced as long ago as 21st December. In the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate for Civil Defence at the beginning of last month I made it clear that that comprehensive policy stood, and that any policy that might be debated subsequently with regard to more heavily protected shelters than those contemplated in the earlier statement of policy would not be in substitution of, but in addition to, the policy then formulated. I hope that hon. Members who wish to criticise the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter of shelter policy will not omit to refresh


their memories by reference to the statement I made on 21st December last. This Bill—and here I think I shall be clearly in order—contains two provisions that have a bearing on the question of deep shelters. There is, first, the provision under which, in the case of shelters provided by employers, a contribution may be made at the rate provided in the Bill towards expenditure on a higher scale than would in the ordinary case be regarded as reasonable. There is also the provision in the Bill with regard to car parks which may be adapted for use as shelters.
In relation to the provisions in the Bill which are designed to cover the creation of more heavily-protected shelters than the ordinary blast - and - splinter - proof shelters under the policy previously announced, I would like to say, by way of explanation, that there has been no delay which could be avoided in proceeding to a final decision of policy on the matter of these more heavily-protected shelters. Very considerable technical investigation was necessary as a preliminary to the formulation of a final policy. Hon. Members who have spoken about deep shelters have spoken as if there was some definite entity which could be identified at once by anyone speaking about a deep shelter or a strongly-protected shelter. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, references have been made to these bomb-proof shelters or these deep shelters as though there was some definite entity. The truth is that a strongly-protected shelter is an idea, an idea that has found expression in various ways, but before His Majesty's Government could formulate any definite policy with regard to deep shelters it was necessary first to investigate, from a technical standpoint, what the form of the shelter should be, what should be its method of construction, what should be provided by way of approaches and exits, how long it would take to construct, the ideal type of shelter, the type of shelter which could be a standard shelter, and what it would cost.
All those things involve close technical investigation, and I took into consultation, a considerable time ago, the best outside advice that I could secure, and work has been proceeding continuously and experiments and tests have been made. Simultaneously, all the general

aspects of the problem of deep shelters on which I touched in the course of the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates have been under review, and I am glad to say, because delays in this important matter are as irksome to me as to anyone, that those investigations are all now coming to a head, and I hope and expect to be in a position, when the House resumes after the Easter Recess, to make a comprehensive and a final statement on this matter. May I be pardoned for a moment if I express to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University my appreciation of the value of the document to which he referred, the bulletin issued by the Air-raid Defence League on this matter. I think that document recognised that finality of design or conception had not been reached in the matter of strongly-protected or deep shelters and that further investigation was necessary. That investigation, as I have tried to explain, has been going on, has been very actively pursued for a considerable time.
I hope I have not transgressed too widely in making these observations, and I return to the speeches of hon. Members who have addressed the Committee on various points in connection with the Financial Resolution. The junior Member for Dundee complained of unnecessary particularity in the drafting of the Financial Resolution. Of course the Resolution goes into a great deal of detail, but I think it must be recognised that it follows the scheme of the Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, it is a Bill dealing with a large number of disconnected topics, and in regard to each topic what is virtually a separate Financial Resolution had to be drafted. That gives the Resolution as a whole an appearance of particularity which it would not perhaps otherwise have borne. By way of illustration of his criticism, the hon. Member asked why, for example, it should have been necessary in the Resolution to talk about compensation for people training in peace time. The answer is that that is all that the Bill seeks to deal with. Compensation in time of war is reserved to be dealt with on the responsibility of the Government of the day by emergency legislation. It will necessarily have to deal with problems of compensation going far beyond those which are dealt with in this Bill, and all those problems of wartime compensation would have to be dealt with on a consistent principle. There-


fore, this Resolution is quite deliberately and, I suggest, necessarily confined to compensation for training in peace time.

Mr. Foot: I am obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The argument he is now addressing to the Committee would be a perfectly valid argument for resisting an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill, but our criticism from this side is that this limitation should not be put in the Money Resolution. Why should the limitation be decided by the form of the Money Resolution and not by the legislation?

Sir J. Anderson: All I can say is that this Resolution was drafted with the assurance that the Prime Minister gave in November, 1937, very clearly in view, so as not to restrict the scope within which the Committee might consider Amendments further than was necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure and to leave to the Committee the utmost freedom of discussion and amendment of detail. Taking the illustration the hon. Gentleman himself gave, to have left that matter at large would have been to throw too widely open to amendment the Clause dealing with compensation.
But I must pass from that point and take up several other questions that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), after expressing a hope that His Majesty's Government would not carry shelter provision too far because, as he suggested, it might result in a shortage of labour and material and a waste of money, passed to certain more detailed criticism. He asked why it was apparently contemplated that in connection with emergency fire fighting only reserves of water were to be provided for. Why, he said, is there no provision in this Resolution for the accumulation of reserves of various chemicals which can be used for fire righting? The answer is that in the view of the technical advisers of the Department—they have some highly experienced advisers in the matter of fire fighting—water, and plenty of it, is the most effective method of putting out the sort of fires that might be created by an air attack. But, in so far as chemicals may be of use, it was not necessary to cover the matter in this Bill or in this Resolution, because under the Act of

1937 there is full power to supply materials of all kinds in connection with Civil Defence.
The same hon. and gallant Gentleman criticised the compensation provisions in the Financial Resolution on the ground that they left certain matters at large, that they were not apparently retrospective and that they did not deal adequately with the position of third parties. The answer is simple; the Financial Resolution and the corresponding Clause in the Bill provide for the payment, at the cost of the Exchequer, of compensation to persons who are undergoing training or taking part in exercises in connection with Civil Defence, in circumstances in which, at present, they could receive compensation under various forms of insurance policy. My hon. Friend cannot have been aware that the scheme of compensation proposed has already been communicated in detail to this House. Outside the scope of that scheme, the legal position of persons who may suffer injury is left exactly where it is. If third-party damage is sustained, that will be subject to the ordinary law. The scope of the Resolution and of the corresponding Clause of the Bill is limited to compensation payable to the trainee.
The hon. Member asked why, in connection with the provisions relating to the organisation of casualty hospitals, the Government had not gone further and covered the treatment of casualties in homes and why the Government had limited the provision of bacteriological service to that, service and had not included a number of other services which might be required. The answer is that the Minister of Health is undertaking the detailed organisation of casualty services in hospitals and of a bacteriological service, and that it is to enable him to carry out his duties in those respects, and for that purpose only, that this financial provision is required. I was asked why gas had not been included in the Part of the Bill dealing with public utilities. The answer to that is that gas undertakings are included. They are among the undertakings towards which 50 per cent. grant may be made.
I come to certain points raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). In contrast to the hon. Member for Hitchin he found the provisions of the Bill on the subject of


shelters too narrow. He would have liked to see all shelters provided under one authority. As to the Bill being too narrow, we must leave the two hon. Gentlemen to cancel out. On the question whether it would have been practical to put the whole responsibility for shelter provision on one authority, I would suggest, on the contrary, that the only sound line is to proceed, in order to achieve the utmost expedition, so as to distribute the responsibility as widely as possible, and to enlist in the general service of the community as many agencies as possible capable of making a valuable contribution. The same hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the risk of sabotage and he wondered why the Financial Resolution was silent on that matter. The answer is that sabotage is a police matter and that it is not necessary to make specific provision for it in a Civil Defence Bill. All necessary provision is already made.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Bill allow compensation to be paid to the undertaking towards the repair of damage?

Sir J. Anderson: The Bill does not deal with compensation to an undertaking for necessary repairs. The Bill is concerned with a contribution towards measures that may be taken in preparation against attack from the air. The only other point to which I need refer concerns the prevention of glare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I fully appreciate the importance of the consideration to which the hon. Gentleman called our attention, and every care will be taken to see that, in the administration of the Clause dealing with glare from pit-heaps, one nuisance is not replaced by another which might be even more objectionable.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: We are dealing with a Financial Resolution with respect to a sum of £25,000,000, and anyone who has been sitting here will wonder why the Government should wish to hurry it through so quickly. We did not reach the Resolution until after eight o'clock. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a long speech, there were one or two other rather long speeches, and then the Lord Privy Seal got up to reply. I do not want to accuse him of discourtesy, but I think it looks rather like it. My complaint is that back benchers do not

seem to have any voice in these proceedings. When a Front Bench man or a Privy Councillor rises, we are passed over. We can keep the House by being in attendance here all the time, but we are not recognised as having a right to speak.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now casting a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Tinker: It is time that this was said. It may be out of order—

The Chairman: The hon. Member admits that it is out of order, and I cannot allow him to pursue it now. He has his remedy, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure of the House.

Mr. Tinker: I will leave it at that, and hope it will have its effect. There is one point with which I want to deal, and that is the item relating to grants in respect of obscuration of glare and camouflage. The right hon. Gentleman just touched on it at the end of his remarks, but throughout the proceedings on the Bill and the Financial Resolution I have not heard anything said about it. A grant of £2,000,000 is being provided for that purpose, and I think we are entitled to some statement as to how that will be spent. All over the country these pit-heaps are showing immense glares, and one wonders how they will be tackled when the time comes. It is true that under the Bill 50 per cent. of the cost of putting out glares will be paid, and surely we have a right to know what examination is being made of the matter. Has the Minister of Health found out how many of these heaps can be put out for £2,000,000? As I see it, a far greater sum will be required. What preparations are being made for dealing with them? Are we to wait a long time before they are tackled? This is an urgent source of danger, and everyone recognises that it would be very serious if war happened to break out. At a time like this we are entitled to a much wider statement than we have had tonight.

The Chairman: That is certainly outside the Resolution, which deals merely with grants-in-aid by the National Exchequer for assistance for work done by other bodies.

Mr. Tinker: On page 8, the Financial Memorandum mentions £2,000,000. Am I not right?

The Chairman: It is not the Memorandum that we are discussing. I agree that the hon. Member was in order up to a point in referring to the amount which would be involved in an item in the Resolution. It was his later sentences I objected to.

Mr. Tinker: Am I not in order in asking for an examination of what will be spent?

The Chairman: No, I think not. The Government are not concerned with the expenditure, except in so far as they have approved it for the purpose of grants. The initiative for this work does not rest with the Government.

Mr. Tinker: On page 2009 of the Order Paper there is quite a definite statement in regard to:
occupiers of factory premises, owners of mines (including quarries) and public utility undertakers.
They will receive a 50 per cent. grant on:
approved expenses on measures for eliminating or screening flames or glare, or for rendering premises less readily recognisable by aircraft
However, if you rule me out of order, I bow to your Ruling. I just want to register my protest. I think it is very unfair that we should not have had an opportunity to deal with the matter.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know of no more urgent question than that which we are considering at the present time. I want to place a few observations on record, for the consideration of the Lord Privy Seal and his Department during the Recess. There are a large number of people who will not get any holidays, especially in the armament factories, because of present circumstances. We should not be doing our duty in this matter if we did not indicate that we are still unsatisfied. I know the Lord Privy Seal has a big job. Until we reached the Money Resolution he must have been gratified with the way the House accepted the proposals of the Bill. I have observed that attitude on both sides of the House, and I have sat here during most of the Debate, except when I was entertaining one of the finest types of young people I have ever met, who was a victim of what many of us may be victims of, unless this country takes adequate steps. Until the Money Resolu-

tion came before us hon. Members on all sides were in agreement and co-operating with the Minister to get the best out of his proposals. Since we reached the Money Resolution we have felt bound to express our opinion with regard to the financial position.
The Lord Privy Seal has inherited a legacy from the past few years. The local authorities are of opinion that they are so burdened with financial responsibilities that many can no longer stand it. The Lord Privy Seal is aware of this, and he is as aware of the importance of this as any other Member. He knows the importance of cutting down the overhead charges of the industrial centres as low as possible. It is because of the burdens on these authorities, which are helping to increase costs of production in industrial areas, that we protest against putting on other burdens which ought to be borne by the nation as a whole.
In the West Riding of Yorkshire, for example, the cost of air-raid precautions amounts to a 4½d. rate and a 1d. local district rate, making 5½d. Therefore the seriousness of this financial burden upon local authorities will be realised. We are trying to assist the Lord Privy Seal in this matter because we know the difficulties of the Cabinet. They have to deal with a conservative Treasury, which has been backward for the last five years. The Government have been backward in making preparations in this country. Slowly but surely they have had to give way in building up armaments and in making provision for the Royal Air Force. If they are to do justice to the Lord Privy Seal in the big job that he has undertaken, he must receive more financial assistance. The burden will have to be taken off the local authorities and borne by the nation as a whole. We are supported in this by the principles which have been established for centuries in this country. The finances for the Army, the Navy and the other armed forces have been borne by the nation as a whole.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is quite entitled to argue that local authorities should be given larger grants, but not that they should not have to bear the burden—that matter has been dealt with and settled on Second Reading.

Mr. Smith: I respect that Ruling. My experience is limited, but I have taken an


interest in Money Resolutions, and I know the difficulty of speaking on them. I remember the Special Areas Act Money Resolution, when you were as generous as you could possibly be in the Chair. I have tried to keep in order as much as possible and at the same time to express the view of local authorities. I believe that, if the principle is right in regard to the armed Forces, it should also be a national responsibility to discharge the cost of Civil Defence.
I was about to proceed to point out that the local authorities have other responsibilities. I have in my locker letters from my town clerk and a number of surveyors and other people with whom I am friendly, expressing their concern about this matter. There is a strong feeling that we ought to make the maximum amount of preparation for defence. We should make this matter a national responsibility, and not throw it upon the local authorities. They will have to bear a serious responsibility with regard to a number of other matters dealt with in the Financial Resolution. They will have to carry out a large amount of surveying. The incidental expenses are mounting up in the aggregate to a very serious amount. In the West Riding they amount to a 5½d. rate and in the area I represent the people are carrying on under great difficulties with rates now over 18s. in the £. That is typical of what is taking place in many industrial centres.
We are trying to place on record as much as we can the position of the authorities that we represent, so that the Lord Privy Seal can go to the Cabinet and the Treasury and say that he must have relief from the difficulty that is creating friction in all the localities.
In reply to a question which I put to him yesterday, the Lord Privy Seal said:
With regard to the general financial position of local authorities, naturally enough we have had to consider from time to time the position in which authorities, and especially the poorer authorities, are finding themselves, in view of the obligations which rest upon them to take action under the Act of 1937, and now, if this Bill is passed, under this still more comprehensive Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1939; col. 2658, Vol. 345.]
That will go a long way to meeting our point, but it is not fair to leave the matter

simply to an individual. Hon. Members opposite must know that this matter affects their districts as well as ours, but they have not spoken on the matter.

Mr. Hutchinson: If the hon. Member had been here last night he would know that I dealt with this matter from a rather different standpoint.

Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Member may recollect that last night I paid a tribute to the whole House for the part they had played, but to-night we are referring to the serious question of the Financial Resolution and not one hon. Member opposite has given us any support, although they know that in the industrial areas, the municipalities, whatever their political complexion, are burning with indignation that more and more of these financial responsibilities, which ought to be a national charge, are being thrown on them. We ought not to leave it to the Lord Privy Seal as an individual to deal with this matter. We all have our responsibilities. We are faced with a serious international situation in which we shall be more and more put to the test as men, not only in regard to our political opinions but our own manhood. Therefore we ought to be backing up the Lord Privy Seal in recording our feelings in expressing the opinions of our municipalities, and of the whole of the people living in our areas, so that the right hon. Gentleman may go to the Cabinet and the Treasury and say that as a result of the opinion of the House of Commons on the Financial Resolution, the time has come when this matter must be reconsidered, in order that we may be worthy of the good will which is finding expression throughout the country in regard to protection being provided for our people in civil defence.
My final point is this: throughout the country during the past few weeks resolutions have been passed on this matter. Time after time hon. Members opposite have raised this matter in private, but it is not good enough to raise it in private. This House of Commons is a democratic institution and if we are to represent the people this is the assembly where opinion ought to be expressed. I am hoping that as a result of this discussion the Lord Privy Seal will not be discouraged from going on with his work with more energy than ever so that we may have proper


and adequate defences to protect our people if we are involved in an emergency.

11.21 p.m.

Major Mills: I desire to raise a definite point on behalf of the County Council of Hampshire. I heard my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal say just now that it will be essential that local authorities should be partners of the central Government in the matter of civil defence and not merely agents. I agree. If hon. Members will look at paragraph (b) of Clause 42, they will see these words:
It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to execute such works (other than the erection of new buildings) as the Minister may require for the purpose of rendering any premises under the control of the council suitable for a hospital for the treatment of casualties.
I want to call the Lord Privy Seal's attention to the fact that this provision will certainly make local authorities the agents of the central authority and not their partners. In the Financial Resolution it is said that for carrying out approved expenditure on premises suitable, 70 per cent. of the cost will be paid by the central Government. This division of the cost will be most unfair when a county council is purely an agent of the Government and is not a partner, and, therefore, does not benefit from the expenditure. In Hampshire we have a Joint Mental hospital just outside Basingstoke, and in the event of war it will be taken over by the central Government for the purpose of civilian casualties from London. The central Government have asked the county council to do certain work. I will not trouble the Committee with the details except to say that this work is of no use whatever to the Hampshire County Council, as the hospital is functioning splendidly at the present moment. As this work is being done purely for the purpose of taking civilian casualties from London, I say that the central Government should pay the whole of the cost.
But the matter is even worse than that. It is bad enough that the ratepayers of Hampshire should have to bear 30 per cent. of the cost, but this is a Joint Mental hospital and one of the authorities is Southampton. Southampton is an area which would be evacuated. It has its own hospital problem, and will have to spend money on the work which will be

necessary at its own hospital. It is therefore most unfair that it should have to contribute towards this 30 per cent. of the cost of work at a hospital at Basingstoke. I suggest strongly that the Government should consider whether in such a case, where the work is being done solely for the use of the central authority, that the central Government could pay the lot.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The Committee finds itself in a remarkable situation as a result of the speech which the Lord Privy Seal has just made. The Committee will note that after consideration, in this case amounting to some months, but in the case of the Government amounting to some years, we are advised that a decision is to be arrived at during or immediately after the Easter Recess with regard to the provision of deep bomb-proof shelters.

The Deputy-Chairman: That subject is quite out of order on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Adams: May I point out the reason I am raising this matter, Colonel Clifton Brown? It is that the financial provisions made in this Resolution, in the event of the Government coming to a decision to permit local authorities to build these shelters, will be altogether inadequate. Therefore, I think we are justified in asking for the postponement of this Resolution, or that the Government shall agree to an amended Financial Resolution to meet these exceptional circumstances. In my judgment, the provisions made for meeting the liabilities of the situation and of the local authorities are quite inadequate.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot have read the Financial Resolution closely. The local authorities are not made responsible under this Resolution for the provision of shelters. That comes under an Act passed some time ago.

Mr. Adams: I take it that there are certain liabilities for civil defence which will fall upon the local authorities. In my judgment, the amount of finance allocated to the local authorities in quite insufficient to enable them to carry out their liabilities to the community. If I am in order in


stating that, I will assert that, under the Resolution, the North-East coast will certainly not receive the financial assistance requisite to defend the citizens. It is clear that for a vast amount of property, in the case of which there is no provision of Anderson shelters, there is no provision for its defence. In the absence of such provision, this Resolution ought not to receive the support of the Committee. I contend that in the matter of factories where fewer than 50 workers are employed, there is no provision in the Resolution to meet the situation. Certainly, on the North-East coast there are large numbers of homes for which no provision is made in this Resolution. Therefore, in the absence of authority being given to the local authorities—as it has not been given—there will be a situation in which the North-East coast, which is a great arsenal, particularly on the Tyneside, will be in an almost unprotected state.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question has been argued out on the Second Reading of the Bill and cannot be argued again on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Adams: I can only say that in my judgment this Resolution does not make adequate financial provision for the protection to which civilians are entitled, particularly in the areas with which I am concerned. These proposals are tentative and insufficient, and will leave large sections of our population unprotected. When the Minister of Health visited the North-East coast he was challenged on the inadequacy of the measures then suggested—those which are embodied in the Bill and the Financial Resolution now before us. His answer was that under the Camps Bill protection might be afforded to large industrial populations in that area but these proposals make no provision for great numbers of our people, and I feel that they ought to be opposed, on this side of the Committee at any rate.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I shall do my best to "walk the tight-rope'' and keep within the limits of order on this Financial Resolution. If it was considered presumptuous on my part to raise the point of Order which I raised, Colonel Clifton Brown, when your predecessor was in the Chair, I have to explain that I was led astray by the Minister of Health. Having, dur-

ing my life, been led astray by many people, I always endeavour to avoid following the lead of my political opponents and it is a unique experience to have been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman. During the Second Reading Debate, in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), the right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the Lord Privy Seal would deal with the question of deep bomb-proof shelters when we came to debate the Financial Resolution. That hope has been disappointed and I am sure the Committee feels the poorer in that we have not had from the Lord Privy Seal some expression with regard to the Government's policy on deep bomb-proof shelters—that is, if they have arrived at one.
I should be lacking in my duty as one who has served for about 11 years in local government administration, if I did not add my protest to those of other hon. Members against the inadequacy of the provision proposed in this Resolution, as it affects local authorities. I shall address myself to one aspect of the case only. The most vulnerable areas and those which will have to bear the largest expenditure, are the industrial areas. In every case these are already carrying the heaviest rate burdens in the country. The Lord Privy Seal said the charge imposed on local authorities by this Measure was insignificant compared with that which would be borne by the Exchequer and that the proposal, in the Resolution would relieve the authorities of certain charges under the Act of 1937. That is no argument. Many of us felt that the Act of 1937 imposed too heavy burdens on the local authorities and while the charges to be borne by local authorities may be insignificant compared with those to be borne by the national Exchequer, they are colossal to bodies whose rates are 16s. or 17s. in the £ or even more.
I am sure that the last thing that the Minister would desire to happen would be that the local councils which have these heavy rate burdens should not be able to do the things that they ought to do to protect the civil population. If members of local councils are faced with an intolerable financial position, can they be condemned because they do not feel like inflicting upon their own people an added burden for something which, after


all, may never happen? Will it not be a fact that many local authorities will be tempted to take the line of least resistance, of procrastination, and delay the provision which certainly ought to be made now, when it is possible to make it? Will the position not probably arise that local authorities in the industrial areas carrying this heavy burden will wake up one morning to find themselves in the midst of hostilities and wholly unprepared, not having made the necessary provision because they have not felt like putting that added burden upon their people?
Why should the industrial Midlands, for instance, be called upon, in defence of their civil population, because some men are compelled to live there, to bear a heavier burden than those who are fortunate enough to live in Aberystwith or Blackpool. [An Hon. Member: "Or Bournemouth"] I have an aversion to speaking of Bournemouth. Here we have the position of local authorities which have enjoyed comparative immunity from Poor Law rates, and it will be the old, old story of those who carry the heavy burden having to carry a heavier burden. The industrial Midlands will have to do that, and I am afraid that it will be a burden which they will not be prepared to carry. The Lord Privy Seal, who did not seem to find it possible to agree with us that this Resolution might be deferred, expressed the fear that vital principles might be held up because of any failure to carry the Resolution now, but I seem to remember that the Government have not always been so careful of getting the authority of this House before involving themselves in financial obligations, because they advanced a loan to Czecho-Slovakia a few months ago without bringing the matter before this House. I do not think there would have been any great difficulty in the Lord Privy Seal, having got the Second Reading of his Bill and all its vital principles settled, going forward with all that he desired to do in the time that will elapse between now and our resumption after the Easter Recess. The local authority with which I am connected, which has already suffered a considerable increase in its rates because of this position, will not be capable of carrying the added burden of the provision which it ought to make under this Bill.
There is one other point to which I want to refer. I find that, according to

the Financial Resolution, docks and harbours rank only for a 50 to 85 per cent. grant, and that seems to be an anomalous position when railway undertakings rank for 100 per cent. without the same degree of vulnerability as docks and harbours. That is an anomaly that ought to be removed. I have no interest in docks and harbours—indeed, the whole of my interest has been in railway undertakings—but I feel that if the railways are entitled to 100 per cent. immunity, the docks and harbours should have equivalent treatment.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: It is essential that the Lord Privy Seal should understand that the idea that he is an unfortunate human being mixed up in a Cabinet which is placing obstacles in his way despite his good intentions, and that he is stopped by the Treasury from carrying out a grand scheme of defence, is something which most of the back bench here do not believe. The Minister should be the first to admit his responsibility, and he must accept full responsibility for any legislation proposed by his Department and submitted to us for our consent. Since the very beginning of Civil Defence local authorities have been asked to assist the Government with schemes. They have had to fight every inch of the way in order to get grants from the Government. They have had to put forward proposals and send deputations in order to try and change the Government's attitude towards them. The responsibility is that of the Lord Privy Seal and the Government in bringing forward a Measure which many of us consider is inadequate and a further injustice to local authorities which will place further burdens upon them. The attitude of this Government in regard to certain questions of administration is that the fullest responsibility should be placed on the local authorities. It has always been the practice of the Government in all its Departments to evade responsibility by placing it on the local ratepayers.
The Lord Privy Seal's subtle, smooth explanation with regard to the dissatisfaction of local authorities does not carry much weight to those who know the facts. It is true that he met the local authorities of Scotland to discuss the general lines of a Bill, but no member of the Government should hold the local authorities


responsible for what took place in preliminary discussions and for accepting a Bill before it is drafted. It is on record that the Lord Privy Seal promised the Scottish local authorities that they would have ample time to discuss the provisions of this Bill before he brought it to the House. He has on this occasion done what the Government are continually doing: he has tricked the local authorities. I warn the Government that the operation of their national defence schemes and of this Bill depend entirely on the co-operation and loyalty of the local authorities. If the Government carry on with the policy of placing burdens upon them unfairly, they will find the local authorities in Scotland, angry as they are just now, telling them to carry out their own national defence policy and leave them to deal with local affairs.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Government make some reply to these speeches from the back benches? Complaint was made that the Government replied before we had finished the Debate, and I think we are entitled to some reply.

Mr. Elliot: I thought the complaint was, rather, that too much time had been taken by Front Bench speakers and I do not think it would be desirable for the Front Bench to take further time.

Mr. Tinker: Can we have an assurance that the points we have put forward will be considered?

Mr. Elliot: Undoubtedly.

Mr. Davidson: The Lord Privy Seal stated to-night that after this Money Resolution was passed he would have further consultations with the local authorities and submit a final report. Can the Minister of Health say whether the local authorities will be able to receive, as the outcome of any representations they may make to him, any further assistance—bringing in the Act of 1937?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly. The Act of 1937 is not in any way connected with this Measure. The review under the 1937 Act is independent of it. The Lord Privy Seal has undertaken not only to review that but to take into consideration the representations of the local authorities, and even possibly to advance that review. That is not in any way affected by the passing of this Resolution to-night.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I want it placed on record that those who have spoken have been expressing not only the views held in their own localities but the views which I know are widely held in Lancashire. Although there has been no hesitation on the part of the county council there and the smaller district councils to co-operate in every possible way with the Government, time after time I have heard protests against these increasing financial burdens upon the local authorities. It is not as though the local authorities were being asked to do things which were definitely within the scope of their duties as they have been generally understood. Many of these new duties have been accepted in the spirit of cooperation that one would expect to prevail, but always there has been the assurance that general financial assistance would be forthcoming. I find it difficult to understand many of the anomalies which are to be found in the Financial Resolution. If the preparations and precautions which are to be undertaken are all essential, and essential for one purpose, surely there cannot be a varying degree of liability in respect of them on the part of the Government?
Is the demand which the railways are making for a square deal the explanation of why they are to get 100 per cent. grant? Why are the local authorities not to get 100 per cent.? Is it because they are not entitled to a square deal, or are they not in a position to put their claims for a square deal in the same way as the railway companies? I canot understand why the works to be executed by a railway company for a war contingency, or the accommodation it is to provide, are to rank for 100 per cent. grant, and yet the water that has to be provided by a local authority expressly for the purpose of putting out fires which have been caused by an air raid is only to rank for 90 per cent. grant. Who in the world can defend an anomaly like that? Why the difference? It is essential that the railway service should be continued, but no more so than that hospital provision should be made for the casualties that will arise. Remember that we are providing for the continuance of the railway service only during hostilities, but, because of the special circumstances, the railways are supposed to be entitled to 100 per cent. For what are we making


provision in the hospitals? Not for meeting the requirements of peace time or of their day-to-day needs, but ostensibly for an emergency; yet they have to rank for less than 100 per cent., in the case of the local authority.
I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that in the interests of unanimity in the working of the scheme these burdens must not be placed upon local authorities, of whom many in this country find it difficult to meet even their ordinary peace time obligations. I know that it has been suggested that the claims of the distressed areas, where heavy rate burdens are suffered at the present time, will be considered, but there is nothing about it in this Money Resolution. The percentages will be the same for a low-rated as for a high-rated area, but those people who now find difficulty in meeting the rate charges are just those who are not gaining financially from the rearmament programme. It has been stated that the benefit of rearmament to the workers has meant that the local authorities concerned are in a better position because the people are able to pay rates, but again I point to Lancashire, which is in a position similar to that of the West Riding of Yorkshire, many of the localities being, to all intents and purposes, distressed areas where no rearmament work is being carried out. The percentages in the Money Resolution definitely place an additional burden on those authorities who can least bear them.
I ask the Lord Privy Seal to think again if he wants unanimity and the cooperation which is essential for this scheme to be effective. An authority can carry out this work only if it is able to pay for it and the speed at which it will be done will be determined by the way in which the finances are gathered in for the purpose. Local authorities are like most people; they cut their coat according to their cloth, and to-day many of them are economising. I have been looking through some of the election results, and I know what is taking place in Lancashire. Where Members associated with the party opposite are gaining ground it is on the basis of appeals for economy, and that local authorities are spending too much money. Rates are going up all over the country and before long we may have another Motion on the Paper asking for rate levies to be scrutinised and asking whether anything can be done about the

extravagance of local authorities. How often have I heard that sentiment from hon. Members opposite; yet every speech to-day from the other side has been in favour of adding to the rates of local authorities who are now working on rock bottom. Every addition put on by the Lord Privy Seal will make the payment of rates more difficult, and more difficult for local authorities to carry out their functions.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Minister of Health and the Lord Privy Seal can have no reason to complain of difficulty in getting the Bill through, but when the Minister of Health was pressed to answer specific points raised by my hon. Friends he appeared to think it was a good answer to say that he had already spoken for a long time and that complaints had been made with regard to the length of his contribution to the discussion. We have never doubted the ability of the right hon. Gentleman to make long speeches; the question is of his ability to make illuminating speeches. The Second Reading provides ample opportunity for making a long explanatory opening speech, and a further opportunity to make a long answering speech. When the Mace is removed from the Table, the opportunity is given to Ministers to answer specific points. It is but our duty, therefore, to press for an answer to the specific point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). It was a point of vital importance, as to the degree of concentration among the various bodies by whom varying contributions are to be made. He made a most important point when he showed that not only was the percentage of grant varying but the purpose to which that grant was to be applied varied to an even greater extent.
I have frequently pressed on the Lord Privy Seal the need for dock and harbour undertakings to take measures for defence. I represent, among other institutions, an important dock and harbour undertaking, although it is very small compared with some others. When we look at the percentages of grant proposed in this Financial Resolution for dock and harbour undertakings we find that it is 50 per cent., and when we look at the ambit which that percentage has to cover we find that it is in respect only of approved expenditure on measures de-


signed to provide facilities, in the event of hostile attack, for the collection of casualties. I am not able to say to what extent provision has been made to assist dock and harbour undertakings in wide measures of defence but, however, spectacular it may seem to make a contribution to the treatment of casualties, that may be only a small part of the duties of a dock and harbour undertaking in time of war.
I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal has taken into full account the tremendous concentration of the attack which is certain to be made on dock and harbour undertakings, the very gates through which our food, oil and other supplies will have to pass? Take the great undertaking of the Thames Haven oil wharves, where treble the amount of oil is now stored compared with the amount a year or two ago. It is bound to be one of the first foci of attack. What assistance is being given to bodies of that kind to take measures for their defence? Successful attack upon it would not only destroy its own value to the community but would spread danger up the whole estuary of the Thames. What has been done to assist fire-fighting appliances, which I think the Government are wholly neglecting, at any rate, in comparison with their importance to dock and harbour undertakings in this country?
These are valid Committee points on the Financial Resolution, and I hope that the Minister will not think that because of the lateness of the hour it is sufficient answer to say that he made a long opening speech on the Resolution.

12 m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The course of the Debate on this Resolution is perhaps a little unfortunate, because of the idea that the discussion might go on after eleven o'clock. I do not accuse the Lord Privy Seal of any discourtesy in rising so early, but the fact that he had to take, with interruptions, over an hour, has made it very difficult for my hon. Friends to put the points which they had particularly in mind. When the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution has gone, the House is practically hamstrung as regards making any further real Parliamentary representations on the matter.
A strong and vigorous case has been put with regard to the position of the

local authorities. There are two aspects of that position. There is the general burden of increased charges which has to be borne by the local revenue, and there is the point, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) of the possible increase of overhead charges as a result of an increase in rates. I think the former is much the more important, because industries are now relieved of the incidence of local rates to the extent of 75 per cent. I come from an area which has suffered from heavy depression since 1918. At the moment it has considerable relief from the peak burden of unemployment, because it is an armament city, but it carries a very considerable burden of rate commitments, and, when the experience of Sheffield is added to that of other industrial areas, there is a strong argument for their being given a larger grant, especially in view of the heavy Poor Law commitments which they have had to meet since the War.
While there is possibly some increase in the overhead charges of industry as a result of rate increases, I think the more important aspect from the industrial point of view is the failure of the Government to make adequate provision for the industrialists upon whom the compulsion is being brought to bear to provide air-raid protection for their employés. I cannot understand the differentiation in the grants. With colleagues in the House, not all of my own party, who represent Sheffield, I have taken part in consultations with the Chamber of Commerce, and we have had put before us the very heavy commitments which must necessarily be undertaken by private employers in a great armament city if the essentail work of maintaining the munitions supply is to be continued. The Resolution indicates that
Occupiers of factory premises, owners of mines (including quarries) and public utility undertakers
will have to incur expenses in connection with measures for eliminating or screening flames or glare, towards which they are to get a grant of 50 per cent.
If the Lord Privy Seal came to Sheffield and went over the acres of premises vital to the interests of the country in time of war, and saw what was to be the cost of schemes in those areas, I do not think he would say that 50 per cent. would be an adequate grant. I cannot see why in their


case it is 50 per cent., but for railway companies 100 per cent. I speak with some interest in the matter, because we have to provide whatever kind of protection would be required in vulnerable, as well as in what you might call non-vulnerable, areas, for tens of thousands of workers. While it might be said that same of the trades are not so vital as the iron and steel trades, for instance; some of them are just as essential in time of war—the food trades, the clothing trades, and so on. Yet these kinds of trades are to be differentiated against, and will get a grant of something under 30 per cent. It is almost impossible to assess the basic principle which the Government have followed in drawing up this schedule of grants.
The other thing I cannot understand is the references which have been made to deep shelters. One or two of my hon. Friends have been ruled out of order when referring to the general policy of the Government in relation to deep shelters. It may be out of order to refer to the matter of the specific provision of such deep shelters by local authorities, but I feel sure you will agree, Sir, that it is not out of order to refer to a deep shelter policy when the Lord Privy Seal has pointed out that, under Clause 17, it is possible for a different basis of grants to be made, rather higher than what would otherwise be regarded as reasonable. I cannot understand, again, the basic principle which the Government have followed in drawing up the Schedule of new grants. There are many employers who, I am quite certain, are represented in all parts of this House, who deserve consideration from two points of view—first, in order to defend the lives of their employés, and, secondly, in order to maintain the efficiency of their factories in time of war. They will want to provide more blast and splinter-proof shelters, and to put in deep shelters. Yet no more than the standard rate of Income Tax, as laid down in the first Section of Table I, will be allowed for them.
We ought to have a far better explanation as to what is the basic principle of the Government in drawing up this Schedule, because I can find neither rhyme nor reason in it. The real fact is that the precautions that are being taken against damage by air raids are as much a matter of general defence of the country in war as any other section of military

or belligerent operations that the Government may undertake, and the responsibility for that defence is as much a question for the Government themselves as is any other of the fighting Services. While it might have been, perhaps, expedient to ask for certain contributions to be made in respect of the total national expenditure to be incurred, I cannot for the life of me understand why the very grave variations between the different parts of the Schedule have been allowed to creep in. I am certain that, unless we can move the Government to postpone the Resolution until further representations can be made, we shall be hamstrung on the Committee stage of the Bill because of the passing of this Resolution. The Government ought to take into account, at a time when parties in all parts of the Committee are willing to support the principle of these proposals and the finding of the money, the strong representations that have been made for justice to be meted out.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Logan: I am sorry at this hour of the morning to have occasion to address the Committee, but I want to remind hon. Members that, whether we sit on the Front Benches or the back benches, we are not to be regarded as automata merely to register votes in this House. I feel, having heard the Minister deal with this matter to-night, that the question of the financial provisions for Civil Defence is of the utmost importance and extreme urgency, and I was more than surprised at the remarks that certain of the municipalities had agreed to the Schedules that have been drawn up. I represent—not misrepresent—a particular portion of the City of Liverpool from which I come, and I have no knowledge whatever of any agreement having been entered into in regard to these liabilities. I am placed in an invidious position in regard to entering an agreement for the expenditure of a huge sum in the City of Liverpool arising out of a public emergency, in being asked to give my consent, owing to the fact that this Resolution is one of extreme urgency and must be passed. We should not be rushed into doing things like this. There should be no necessity for that. If it were necessary, we ought not to be going away for any holidays at all and should be kept occupied in this House until we had dealt with this extreme measure and had got it out of the way. We are here to do our duty, and,


on so important a Financial Resolution, it is necessary that we should really know where we are.
If we agree to pass this Money Resolution to-night we shall have no opportunity on the Committee stage of the Bill to make any alterations. It will be practically binding. We have heard a lot about the methods of Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler, but there can be nothing more drastic in Italy or Germany than what is being done in this country as a result of the proposition which is before this Committee to-night. It is not the proper way for the House of Commons to do its business. I am at a loss to understand why none of the overburdened municipalities has protested to this House. I am not prepared idly to accept the responsibility of sitting silent without expressing my opinion on a drastic Measure concerning the financial obligations to be borne by the ratepayers of the city which I represent.
Liverpool has been badly hit. It is a western seaport which must bear a great deal of the transport of the nation in a time of extreme urgency. If it be necessary for the western seaports to bear the brunt, as I believe they ought for the welfare of the nation, the major part of it should not fall on us. We have no opportunity to alter the Financial Resolution one iota. It is like the laws of the Medes and Persians. "You can take it or lump it," says the Minister; "there is a national emergency, and if you reject it I do not know what I am going to do." I do not want to be placed in the position that I vote against the Resolution, but there is no reason why I should be silent and merely record my vote. I protest most strongly. It is an abuse of the powers of this House to come at such short notice. We should, if necessary, go on all night and all tomorrow with this Measure, which is of such great importance.
We ought to have a consensus of the House. Look round this Chamber; you would think there was no emergency in the country. Where is the great Liberal party? I am looking along its empty benches. Two of our own Members are sitting on the Liberal benches to preserve the decency and the reputation of the Liberal party. I can imagine that in a state of emergency there would be no

safer place than the House of Commons. Members are so seldom here that you would be able to have the accommodation of this House and utilise it for a proper purpose in the interests of the nation. [Laughter.] This is not a time for tomfoolery at all.
Consider the responsibility which Liverpool has to bear under the Bill. We are asked to do too much. I disagree entirely with the Schedule. In my business experience I know that if I said, "Take it or leave it" to customers, they would walk out; they would not have the goods. Here, we have to lump it. There is not a municipality in the nation that fully knows the responsibility it will have to bear under this policy and this financial regulation that we are about to impose. No doubt in the near future, we shall be condemned for being assenting parties to these proposals.
I am aware of the importance of the extreme Measures that must be brought forward, but I voice my opinion in protest because I do not think it is a proper way to bring such things forward. I blame the Government for not bringing forward Measures to give adequate treatment to areas that do not do their part in the work of the nation, that are not among its main arteries, do not bear the brunt of the traffic and get easement in regard to the things that are good in life, while other areas, more especially the great seaports, have to bear this excessive charge and have no preferential treatment. I am surprised to find Members of Parliament taking things so easily. They would not allow a proposition like this to go through in their own businesses unless they knew what they were doing. Hon. Members seem to think that everything is all right; they have only to be told by a Whip to go into the Aye or the No Lobby. I cannot understand their mentality. I am voting to-night for what I condemn as an unbusinesslike method. It is a tragedy to the ratepayers of the country that this House has not had proper time to discuss this matter.

Sir J. Anderson: Sir J. Anderson rose—

The Chairman: The question is—

Mr. Garro Jones: Might I draw your attention, Colonel Clifton Brown, to the fact that the Lord Privy Seal, in response to repeated requests, rose to speak, and


sat down again only when you rose to put the question?

12.24 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee, but I thought it might be appropriate if I said a few words in reply. The hon. Member opposite called attention to the wide variation in the rates provided in this Resolution and said that he could not understand what principle had been followed. I will give in a very few words my understanding of the matter. Whatever views may be held about the burden on the rates, there can be little doubt that the Bill does not and will not of itself add substantially to any burden on the local authorities. The burden of which complaint is made was laid on local authorities by Parliament in 1937 but provision was made in the Act of 1937 for a review, no doubt in the expectation that there would be inequalities and that the burden in certain cases was greater than those local authorities could reasonably be expected to bear. I dealt with that point in the Second Reading Debate yesterday and I really do not think I can profitably add to what I said then.
I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) about the wide variation in the rates of grant. First of all, I will deal with the grant to industry in respect of the provision of shelters. The general principle on which these provisions have been framed is that industry should carry its own burdens, and that the responsibility for providing against the risks of war, as they affect industrial undertakings, is a responsibility resting primarily upon the undertakings. But a demand has been made for relief, in respect of expenditure incurred by industrial undertakers, expenditure which, it was suggested, might reasonably be allowed to rank as an expense in the calculation of profits for purposes of Income Tax. That demand, put forward by industry up to the time of last year's Budget, provides the logical basis for the rate of grant provided in this Resolution—the rate of grant corresponding to the standard rate of Income Tax, not for last year, but for the year 1939–40. That is the logical basis. It is the equivalent of relief which, largely owing to technical Income Tax considerations, cannot be given in the form in which it was asked

that it should be given. It is being given in a form which is somewhat wider in its scope and more generous.
With regard to public utility undertakings, the broad principle here is that there are two parallel obligations, the obligation of a public utility undertaking to provide the public service which it exists to provide and in respect of which, in most cases, the undertaking enjoys a monopolistic position, and the general obligation of the State to see that adequate defence measures are carried out. Balancing one against the other, a fifty-fifty principle was adopted. That is the general principle as regards public utility undertakings.

Mr. Alexander: What about food?

Sir J. Anderson: Food is in a different position. As regards the application of the principle to various classes of undertakings, account was taken of obvious differences in the situation of different undertakings. Broadly, gas, water and electricity are treated alike. In the case of the railways, account is taken not only of the financial situation of the railways, but of the fact, which differentiates their position, that in the event of war it has been determined that the railways shall be brought under complete control, financial and executive, by the central government. That means that any measures taken beforehand to deal with a war situation will inure to the benefit of the Government which assumes financial control. That is the reason why a provisional grant is made on a 100 per cent. basis, subject to the condition that in the operation of the system of control, if war comes, recovery shall be made by the Government from the railway undertakings up to 50 per cent. of the amount advanced.
I come now to the financial provisions in regard to glare and camouflage. There it was felt that a contribution in excess of the rate normally given to industrial undertakings was reasonable and fully justifiable because of the fact that provision for screening glare and for camouflaging, where it involves capital expenditure, is to be made not only in the interests of the particular undertaking but in a wider interest, for the purpose of giving a greater degree of protection to the areas in which the undertaking is situated. That was considered to constitute a sufficient justification for the


higher rate of grant, and 50 per cent. was thought to be—

Mr. Tinker: On what basis did you arrive at the amount in the Financial Resolution?

Sir J. Anderson: It was considered that in that particular case, for the reasons I have given, there was justification for going beyond the 27½ per cent. contribution which is being made to industry generally, and 50 per cent. was fixed as a reasonable figure. I ought to have said that in the case of the docks, which ordinarily would have been considered to rank for grant equally with gas, water and electricity undertakings, provision had to be made for the contingency that the docks in the less vulnerable areas might have to take measures to ensure not merely the effective carrying on of their own normal responsibilities in time of war, but responsibilities which in normal times would be discharged by dock undertakings in other parts of the country. Therefore, provision was made in such cases for increasing the rate of grant from the normal 50 per cent. to something as high, I think, as 85 per cent.

Mr. Logan: Was it not considered that there was any reason, in regard to the poverty of the area, to go the whole hog and give 100 per cent.?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not, in the view of the Government, solely a question of economy but of getting the work done in a businesslike manner and preserving a degree of financial responsibility on the part of those who carry on the work, which enables them to preserve a measure of discretion and not to throw on the central authority the whole burden of organising everything and providing safeguards. If that had been done there would have been an inevitable slowing up, unless prudence was to be thrown to the winds entirely. The argument for distributing costs is not based solely on the desirability of saving expense to the Exchequer. It is based in some respects on the even more important consideration of practical efficiency.

Mr. Logan: Can we have a guarantee that if the work is done efficiently and expeditiously you would stand the whole of the cost?

Sir J. Anderson: The principle was settled, I think, on the Second Reading of the Bill. It had previously been examined by Parliament in the Act of 1937.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of docks, may I draw his attention to this important point? The adjectival description of the various expenses for which grant would be made varies throughout the classification. In one case you get "reasonable expenses;" in another "approved expenses." In yet another case—there are two rates of grants for docks—the expression is used ''in case of measures of dock or harbour undertakings for providing services not required of the undertaking apart from hostile attack or danger." That appears to me to be a somewhat obscure expression. Does that expression mean that the expenses will have to be approved beforehand, and how will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish measures which will not have to be taken apart from hostile attack and the other rate of grant given to dock undertakings which provides for expenses to deal with casualties? That latter class will be taken only in case of hostile attack. Will expenses in the case of dock undertakings have to be approved beforehand in order to rank for grant?

Sir J. Anderson: As regards reasonable capital expenses in the case of employers, if the hon. Member will look at the corresponding Section of the Bill he will see that reasonable expenses are defined as expenses which conform to the requirements of the regulations to be made with the approval of the Treasury. When you come to the case of public utility undertakings, the proposals represent the results of negotiations carried out by the Minister concerned—in the case of docks, railways and electricity undertakings by the Minister of Transport. "Approved" does not mean expenses incurred prior to approval either specifically or generally as the result of negotiations which have been carried out. That is the reason for the introduction of those words.
Now as to the different cases: Subject to the general arrangement that the expenses in the case of public utility undertakings should be shared fifty-fifty, variations have been made where special considerations had to be taken into


account. There is variation in the case of the railways. In the case of docks and harbour undertakings you have the fact that certain docks may have to undertake work which normally would be performed by other dock undertakings, and may, in that connection, have to incur expenses which can never be expected to bring any peace-time return. In the case of docks there is a special feature that on dock premises a large number of persons are apt to congregate who are either not employés of the dock authority or not employés at all. In the negotiations with the dock authorities arrangements have been made by which the dock authority will provide shelter for other than their own employés. Also, as the Schedule indicates, arrangements have been made by which the dock authority will make itself responsible for the collection of casualties occurring on ships or adjacent to the dock or on adjacent land. These are all considerations, with regard to a particular class of undertaking, which have to be taken into account in settling the rate of grant. They constitute the explanation which the right hon. Member for Hillsborough sought in regard to the Schedule.
When one passes to the various grants payable in virtue of this Schadule to local authorities, all that one san say is that here you have had embodied in the scheme submitted to the Committee the result of consultations and negotiations with the authorities concerned. In the case, for example, of evacuation, the Government declared some considerable time ago—certainly long before I had any responsibility—that all the expenses of evacuation would be borne by the Government. The reason for that was that the authorities concerned could not logically be saddled with the expenses involved. You could not expect a reception area which had no voice in determining who from the vulnerable areas should go into that area, to accept liability for the resulting expenses in matters which in practice would not be in any way under their control. For that reason you find the 100 per cent. grant in the Schedule. In the case of fire schemes the grant is put at 90 per cent., as high as it was thought any rate of grant could be put while preserving some real degree of responsibility with the local authority. That amount was arrived at after negotiations with the local

authorities and there was no more principle behind it than that it was the result of negotiation. I hope that I may make this suggestion to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, that these rates of grant, going as high as 90 per cent., are surely indicative of a desire on the part of the Government not to place a heavier burden on local authorities than is considered necessary on practical grounds of administration and due economy.

Mr. Tomlinson: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes with that argument may I ask him whether he can expect that the work of evacuation can be carried out adequately, seeing that the Government are paying 100 per cent. and the local authorities are doing the work?

Sir J. Anderson: The matter is one which comes under the Government. The element of local interest is not involved, as it is in the question of shelters.

Mr. Tomlinson: But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this: In my own district there is work being done, and being done well I may add, by voluntary labour. Is that work over which the Government have control?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday, 18th April.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords].

Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [4th April] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the London Government Bill [Lords] be now considered.''—[Captain Margesson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords, to consider the London Government Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Captain Margesson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Committee nominated of,—Mr. Beech-man, Miss Cazalet, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Liddall, Major Milner, Mr. R. C. Morrison, and Mr. Ross Taylor.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Captain Margesson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third Time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes before One o'Clock